The UN cluster approach, how it may relate to local utilities, and some questions about both

---
SUMMARY

I attempt to integrate the UN cluster approach with a
set of questions arising from concerns Gavin raises. 
Notably, the role of existing utilities in a disaster
zone, how their own response systems might have to be
integrated with those imposed during an emergency, and
the degree to which evolving best practices in telecom
and the UN model will change the way that disaster
response currently works or seems to work or not work.

Since the clusters were evidently intended to fill
life-critical service gaps, and those gaps are filled
in normal non-disaster circumstances by what we
commonly call a "utility", I suggest a hierarchy
exists called

  cluster/utility/process/activity/transaction

Where the (most abstract) clusters are roughly those
the UN defines, and the (least abstract) transactions
are roughly like those documented in other XML-based
standards, and will rely on many existing standards. 
(OASIS SOA patterns use process/activity/transaction)

I ask some difficult questions about the contracts and
governance relationships that apply between clusters
and the utilities that serve the same life-critical
needs in normal times.  Focusing on transparency as a
way to bring in new resources and pressure monopolies.

I don't believe use of transaction and other market
and business like language biases solutions towards
individuals as suppliers nor laissez-faire ideology. 
I think it's inevitable since ontologies reduce some
vague human concepts into operational transactional
dysjunctive concepts that are machine-interpretable,
and since English uses market terms to describe the
many-to-many interactions envisioned by the UN etc..  

The UN term "provider of last resort" implies that
they are aware of any biases toward passing the buck
and defined the clusters to ensure some deference,
though they deal weakly with funding and access and
"insecurity" issues the W3 could deal strongly with.

---

Here's a useful overview of the UN "cluster" approach:

http://ochaonline.un.org/cap/webpage.asp?Page=1355

That outline seems to suggest that the clusters are
indeed perspectives on multiple processes, and
therefore that a cluster/process/activity/transaction
structure is appropriate.  As Gavin suggests,
life-critical functions in daily life in rich
countries are handled by what we call a "utility". 
The cluster definitions being very broad, maybe
cluster/utility/process/activity/transaction is a more
appropriate way of describing the hierarchy?

I can see how Newt Gingrich's language seems to imply
individuals not collectives are primarily involved,
but
I don't think this biases the way one solves any type
of problem.  Obviously a collective can issue or meet
a request.  Gavin's concern about market-like methods
leading to market-like unconcern for any specific need
being met seem to be dealt with explicitly as follows
by the UN:

"The cluster leads are expected to serve as the
provider of last resort. Obviously, this cannot be the
case in some circumstance, for example when access is
denied, insecurity reigns, or funds are unavailable.
Further, recognising that early recovery is a complex,
multi-sector and dimensional process, the IASC agreed
that early recovery might need to be treated on an
exceptional basis."  This is footnote [8] in the link.
 

I suggest that dealing with the access, insecurity and
funds issues involves bringing in the public and
unaffected third parties who can pressure authorities
and fund relief efforts.  And that this is best done
by the kind of open protocols than ontologies enable.

The intent of the UN seems to be that this occur.
Each cluster is "chaired" by a specific agency so it
is relatively easy to figure out where to look for the
definitive requirements statement or definitions.  And
to see where the buck stops.  But there is definitely
a feeling in this document that clusters are primarily
responsible to identify their relations to each other.

Each cluster is identified as filling some "gap" that
has existed in prior response efforts, that is, that
these are things that are NOT being done well enough,
possibly because they can't really ever be done right.
It appears the UN is very committed to this approach.

The key quotes:

UN Member States called "in 2005 for more predictable,
efficient and effective humanitarian action, for
greater accountability, and for the UN to build the
capacity and technical expertise to fill gaps in
critical sectors and common services.[2]  The UN
General Assembly in its 60th Session requested the
Secretary-General to continue to explore ways to
strengthen the response capacities of the
international community to provide immediate
humanitarian relief, building on existing arrangements
and ongoing initiatives.[3]  The way forward as
described during the Economic and Social Council and
General Assembly, as well as in studies such as the
independent Humanitarian Response Review, envisages: 

 

a) mapping the response capacities of national,
regional, and international actors; 

b) strengthening response capacities, in particular
human resources; 

c) applying benchmarks to measure performance; 

d) improving coordination; and e) filling gaps in
water and sanitation, shelter, camp management, and
protection.[4]  

 

Indeed, the Humanitarian Response Review (HRR)
recommended assigning responsibilities by sector to
lead organisations and developing clusters of relevant
partners to develop preparedness and response
capacity.

 



In September 2005 the Principals of the Inter-Agency
Standing Committee (IASC) agreed to establish cluster
leads in nine areas.[5]  

 

First, clusters dealing with service provision: 

 

a) Logistics, chaired by the World Food Programme
(WFP); and 

b) Emergency Telecommunications, chaired by the Office
for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) as
process owner, with the United Nations Children’s Fund
(UNICEF) as the common data communications service
provider and WFP as the common security
telecommunications service provider.  

 

Second, clusters dealing with relief and assistance to
beneficiaries: 

 

c) Emergency Shelter, chaired by UNHCR (for
conflict-generated IDPs)[6]; 

d) Health, chaired by the World Health Organisation
(WHO); 

e) Nutrition, chaired by UNICEF; and 

f) Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene, chaired by UNICEF. 


 

Third, clusters covering cross-cutting issues: 

 

g) Early Recovery, chaired by the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP); 

h) Camp Coordination and Camp Management, chaired by
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) (for conflict-generated Internally Displaced
Persons [IDPs]) and by the International Organization
for Migration (for natural disasters); and 

i) Protection, chaired by UNHCR (for
conflict-generated IDPs).[7]  (Because of the varying
nature of the clusters, the scope and range of
activities proposed by the different clusters also
vary, and hence are presented in this appeal in the
manner best suiting each.)"

...

" Cluster leadership functions at the global level
include: 

 

a) up-to-date assessments of the overall needs for
human, financial, and institutional capacity; 

b) reviews of currently available capacities and means
for their use; 

c) links with other clusters, including preparedness
and long-term planning, standards, best practice,
advocacy, and resource mobilisation; 

d) taking action to ensure that required capacities
and mechanisms exist, including rosters for surge
capacity and stockpiles; and 

e) training and system development at the local,
national, regional, and international levels. 
Designated Global Cluster Leads are accountable to the
Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC) for ensuring
predictable and effective inter-agency preparedness
and response within the concerned sectors or areas of
activity."
"At the field level, the cluster approach will
strengthen the coordination and response capacity by
mobilising clusters of humanitarian agencies (UN/Red
Cross-Red Crescent/international organisations /NGOs)
to respond in particular sectors or areas of activity,
each cluster having a clearly designated and
accountable lead, as agreed by the Humanitarian
Coordinator (HC) and the Country Team. To enhance
predictability, the field-level cluster lead will
normally be in line with the cluster lead arrangements
at the global level. These measures will ensure
enhanced partnerships between UN-Red Cross/Red
Crescent-NGOs on the ground, improved strategic
field-level coordination and prioritisation, and will
introduce measurable accountability from the
operational partners to the Humanitarian Coordinators.
Cluster lead functions at the field level include: 

 

a) predictable action in the cluster for analysis of
needs, addressing priorities, and identifying gaps; 

b) securing and following up on commitments from the
cluster to respond to needs and fill gaps; 

c) acting as provider of last resort[8]; and 

d) sustaining mechanisms for assessing the performance
of the cluster and individual participants."


These are extremely broad terms of reference.  I
suggest deepening Gavin's questions using some of the
above terminology, and asking questions also about:

 - Existing utility usage for the domains they deal
with
  well in non-extraordinary times (such ontologies
will
  already exist though they may be poorly
standardized)

   - How do the agencies chairing the clusters
interact
     with standards committees those utilities obey?
     For instance how do OCHA, UNICEF and WFP work on
     or with IEEE, ITU or IETF committees?  Is there a
     standard for reporting large-scale water flows
and
     surges?  Water-borne disease?  Who does UNICEF
ask
     about these things?

- Diverting public calls to the utilities at least for
  monitoring purposes if the utility is utterly
failing
  and perhaps to discover opportunistic efficiencies
(a
  power utility truck already going to a specific
place
  might carry a doctor too, if that's known in
advance)

   - What is the contract with the utility that aids a
     relief effort the most while disturbing the
normal
     work processes with the utility the least?  How
do
     aid agencies swap requests with utility
companies?

- Ensuring utilities' requests for help are included
in
  any system deployed to help 'camps' or 'aid
agencies'

   - Effectively, a utility that is still operating is
     a source of 'aid' for those still relying on it. 

     Unnecessary failures load aid efforts further, so
     utility business continuity is an aid priority to
     some degree.

- For utilities and facilities and local agencies that
  normally maintain some "rosters for surge capacity
  and stockpiles", coordinating reporting of these so
  than anticipatory restocking and capacity relief can
  be arranged.

- Ensuring responsible individuals can verify requests
  and will be aware of what help is arriving and when
  so there are additional eyes on supplies and
requests
  and the many-suppliers many-receivers model won't be
  discredited so easily.  It also helps identify who
is
  trustworthy to take over functions when specialists
  depart for areas requiring more urgent intervention.

   - What credentials ought to be distributed?  By
who?
     Is this up to the "field-level cluster lead"?  If
     persons are providing or relaying data relevant
     to more than one cluster, how can credentials be
     combined?

   - Is this controlled by "cluster leadership" in any
     way?  Would the WHO for instance restrict who was
     credentialled as a nurse or to handle medicines?

- The way institutions can participate in open
matching
  of requests and offers, and make binding
commitments.

   - Obviously it's not just "individuals" involved
     but collectives can only commit via credentialled
     individuals, so how are those verified to have
the
     authority to act for their collective?

- The problems of following up and 'clearing' any such
  commitments to ensure they have actually been met
and
  that they satisfied the need they were intended to.
   
    - Obviously followup to each commitment is needed.
      Is this up to the " field-level cluster lead" in
      the UN model?

    - What can "cluster leadership" do to ensure that
      maximum pressure is applied to meet commitments?

- The "provider of last resort" role - if no helper   
  meets a particular life-critical request, who does,
  and what is the acceptable level of expense to do
so?

   - The answer varies with implicit value of life, as
     higher expenses to save lives are acceptable to
     more consuming countries, while those poorer are
     are more likely to prioritize long term
rebuilding
     to mitigate and prevent long term losses of life.
     After all, the world may be ignoring them in one
     year again.

   - It's not clear what "funds not available" means.
     Presumbly they are available from some donor in
     some country who has never heard of the problem,
     but wasn't asked.

   - It's not clear what "access and insecurity" mean.
     Some agencies like MSF make a point of illegally
     entering war zones and doing what they can, and a
     great deal of pressure must typically be felt by
     an aid agency before it fully withdraws from even
     an active conflict zone.

   - Cultural gaps in priorities can be quite severe 
     and lead to extraordinary misunderstandings and
     events;  For instance, the Taliban in Afghanistan
     were incensed that Western aid was available to 
     preserve the stone Buddhas but not to feed or to
     provide medical aid to children;  This tended to
     strengthen anti-Western (and 'anti-idolatry')
     feelings and led to the statues being destroyed.
     This in turn fed the assumption that the Taliban
     were xenophobic and irrational and could not thus
     be dealt with diplomatically, which was to have a
     number of effects after 9/11.

   - Can "cluster leadership" be expected to agree on
     one way to handle a particular type of need world
     wide?  Or will it always be culturally specific?

  - Is there a way to let requests be handled in some
   streamlined private system unless they are delayed
   to the point where it's less of a risk to put the
   request to a larger group of aid agencies and then
   the public?  A 24/48/72 hour threshold for example?
   Or is transparency always the best strategy?

     - Does "cluster leadership" decide this?  Who?

- Whether transparency implies diluting responsibility
  
  - If so, how to ensure that the effect is minimized.

  - Can "cluster leadership" decide not to share data
    and to somehow guarantee it will in fact provide a
    service if no one else does?  What if they fail?
    How is that even exposed?  What audits must apply?

- Whether accepting help from a wider range of helpers
  implies diluting authority or relaxing some
standards

  - When might this be inevitable or just acceptable?

- Where ITC perspectives must dominate (integration
and
  ability to perform machine reasoning, compatibility
  with network management protocols, etc.) and change
  practice, in order to have the ontology work at all,
  and where ambitions for the future must be relaxed
  in favour of current practice and field experience

  - An ontology must be machine-processable and thus
    must rely on dysjunctive definitions, that is, a
    definition must be in terms of pass/fail tests not
    ambiguous natural language, unless humans will be
    always obligated to inspect and verify inferences.

  - No matter what preferences any government or
agency
    might have, the ubiquity of IP, SNMP, HTTP, XML
and
    GPS coordinates are going to predetermine very
many
    low-level representations.  IEEE and IETF and ITU
    standards for instance dominate the telecom field,
    and will continue to, and they use certain terms
it
    would be extremely unwise to deviate from at all.
    Even non-technical terms such as RFC2119 use of
the
    terms MUST, SHOULD NOT, etc., are not negotiable
as
    they are proven to reduce ambiguities in
protocols.

  - Where must the ontology use a legacy term that is
    clearly not operational, not machine-processable,
    and not testable in the field even by "field-level
    cluster leads" but necessarily defined elsewhere,
    and thus interpreted by authorities who assess it?

    - How is "cluster leadership" held responsible for
      any consequences of relying on such legacy
terms?

    - How might operational alternatives be tested and
      proposed as replacements for the legacy terms
and
      centralized protocols that require use of them?

    - Is restoring function of a pre-disaster utility 
      infrastructure always a good idea, or should
some
      specific infrastructures (e.g. POTS lines, flaky
      AC power systems used only by a few) be replaced
      opportunistically when disasters destroy them ?


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 

Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 18:02:22 UTC