Background Summary

Ken is a married Australian male, and currently resides back in his home state, Queensland.  He and his wife have a number of grown up children. His original degree was related to agriculture, and he has subsequently achieved Master level postgraduate qualifications from outside of Australia.  Whilst he initially lived and worked in rural Queensland, for the majority of his working career he has been employed by a small number of international non government organisations (NGOs).  He has held a succession of increasingly senior management and leadership positions in both Australia and internationally, with fifteen years of this time being out in East Africa.  He is currently the senior executive of a major international NGO, providing strategic guidance and leadership in the various and complex aspects of its humanitarian work.

Question 1

You have worked your way up over the past 25+ years holding increasingly important managerial roles, to the position where you now head up the humanitarian sector of a major international NGO.  What would you say are the main challenges facing an international NGO such as yours, particularly on the humanitarian side, as compared to when you first started your career in international development?

Professionalism in the humanitarian sector is a very different dimension today as compared to 20+ years ago ... which is good.  Aid effectiveness, and management / leadership to that end, was largely the product of adaptable and innovative relief staff.  While these attributes are of course still required today, there has been a much greater emphasis on professionalising the sector, especially in the area of systems, technical functions, leadership and management skills, and accountability.

Crowded and confused humanitarian space as seen today is a significant departure from the experience of two or three decades ago.  At that earlier time, humanitarian space was characterised by limited numbers of actors in this space; relatively simple but clear relationships between these actors and those other actors that would be engaged in humanitarian space.  Aid agencies enjoyed a place of trust and esteem with other entities in the vicinity such as the host government, UN agencies, non-state actors (including those who were combatants) and communities.  This is often now no longer the case as demonstrated by tense and competitive relationships between those seeking to occupy this space, and aggressive (even deadly) and distrusting relationships.  Humanitarians no longer enjoy a place of trust and protection within the communities where they work.

Another area of significant change in the humanitarian landscape is the level of collaboration and partnering that now occurs as compared to 20+ years ago.  The expectation today of all humanitarian agencies is that coordination and collaboration are part of our modus operandi;  and those agencies that do not enter into this mindset are quickly marginalised by their peers.  The presence, for example, of the coordination system utilising the clusters has made a significant difference to how UN and NGO agencies function together in disaster response environments, although the many short comings of this system are recognised.  Another related phenomenon is the more frequent occurrence of partnerships which seem to ensure that the comparative advantages on partnering agencies are realised, with resultant greater programming effectiveness.  These partnerships take many forms, not just NGO to NGO, or NGO to UN.  Other entities such as corporate and commercial entities, host governments, academia, special interest foundations, etc., now participate in these partnerships.  This is a very different picture to what existed even 10 years ago where corporate and commercial entities were an anathema to sound relief and development work;  and high competitive, even combative, relationships existed between humanitarian agencies. 

Question 2

You originally come from rural Queensland, and over the past few years have returned back here to live.  This central and southern part of the state experienced particularly difficult floods towards the end of 2010 and in early 2011, as well as Cyclone Yasi further to the north.   What are your thoughts about the relative strengths and  weaknesses of the State’s Disaster Risk Management systems, particularly when you compare these to similar initiatives in some of the overseas countries in which your organisation works?         

For me to make this direct comparison is quite difficult.  My involvement in disaster management activities in overseas countries as part of my role is at a leadership and detailed operational level.  In contrast, my engagement with the Queensland floods and cyclones of January 2011was largely that of an observer status, with the majority of my information coming from the public media.  I was not operationally involved.  With this caveat, I have the following observations.

The overall emergency response seemed to be well coordinated and resourced.  From the purview of an external observer, the various emergency services that were deployed seemed to function seamlessly together, under one central government-led leadership team.  It was clear that the operations room facility was very much in control of operations at the high strategic level, and that the command and control functions seemed to work on down the line.

There remains a big question regarding preparedness measures that should have, or could have been put in place that may have reduced the impact of these disasters.  Levée banks in places such as Emerald, Rockhampton and Roma could have, for example, reduced the levels of inundation experienced.

Finally, the softer side of the management of this disaster was done well.  This was the demonstrated leadership shown, which was then communicated out via the various media outlets, giving a positive level of assurance and confidence to the general public.  This had the effect of maintaining public moral and confidence in the emergency management systems, and avoided pessimism and even panic in the midst of what proved to be a series of disaster events, each significant in their own right.