In 2007, ASEAN has had focus on multi-sectoral pandemic preparedness and response (PPR)—on building structures covering the health and essential non-health sectors that will ensure effective response, mitigation, and recovery in relation to a possible WHO-declared Phase 6 pandemic of H5N1 avian influenza in origin.  A number of ASEAN meetings/activities have been held to move forward with these initiatives.

It was agreed that a valid assessment would be required in order to identify gaps and enable evidence based planning for a strategic approach to ensure that within a certain timeframe all countries would have established pandemic response readiness and all key actors and service providers in (at least) the essential service sectors will have developed Business Continuity Plans (BCPs) for a pandemic.

The assessments and the development of strategic plans based on results can be vital steps to ensure that the key actors and service providers in all essential service sectors will develop BCPs enabling them to mitigate the impact of a pandemic on their operations and to maintain their services. While those plans might be initiated and be based on the scenario of a rather severe pandemic, their usefulness goes far beyond the pandemic and would enable governments in general and sectors in particular to cope with and respond to many other emergencies as well.

Therefore, ASEAN developed a methodology to assess the status and capacities of the AMS regarding multisector pandemic preparedness and carried out in June 2009 a pilot assessment in Indonesia. Based on the pilot assessment conducted in Indonesia, and various reports, it is revealed that awareness among the non-health sectors with regard to the impacts of an influenza pandemic is still lacking.  Most non-health sectors in many AMS lack pandemic preparedness and response plans and a clear strategy on how to achieve preparedness of the key actors (including ministries and public authorities) and service providers. While large private service providers and international corporations might have developed BCP for a pandemic, sector wide coverage is at best sketchy and many organizations have no BCPs at all.

The assessments for all ten AMS, when completed by mid 2010, are expected to identify oversight and operational gaps within national and sub-national structures, and within the relevant civil society and public-private sector linkages.  Following the assessment, the AMS can more easily develop strategic plans to address the needs and to fill the gaps within their country, which could otherwise lead to breakdown in essential services, operations and businesses.

After the pilot assessment in Indonesia was conducted, recommendations and comments from the focal points of the ASEAN Technical Working Group on Pandemic Preparedness and Response (ATWGPPR) were gathered by the ASEAN Secretariat—these include: modifying the questionnaire and reviewing the use of quantitative rating scale; conducting self assessment instead of involving peer assessors (some countries find it difficult to assign assessors); requiring supporting documents to responses, and that the assessment should not be as a national survey but a strategic qualitative needs assessment using an interview format.  Based on these, a new approach to the assessment methodology based on an internal assessment process is being proposed. The new approach should uphold the goal to institutionalize structures and mechanisms that enable effective interdependent multi-sectoral PPR aimed at ensuring continuity of essential services, operations and businesses during a severe pandemic involving AMS and the region.  It should establish the practical needs of AMS to which ASEAN and its dialogue partners could effectively direct regional assistance. It should also help clarify the organizational and operational responsibilities expected to be within national and sub-national structures, and the linkages involving relevant civil society actors.  A clear understanding of the importance of essential services, operations, and business continuity during a severe pandemic scenario is critical in the conduct of the assessments as this is the main reason for ensuring multi-sectoral PPR under the ASEAN Work Plan for PPR.

This Workshop, therefore, generally aims to move forward with the national multi-sectoral assessments of pandemic preparedness in all AMS, taking into consideration the preference of AMS to conduct Internal Assessment, with possible external assistance.

Objectives: 

1.    Achieve the common understanding among AMS regarding the importance of multi-sectoral planning and preparations, and how country assessments can be used to facilitate the continuity of operations and services during a severe pandemic;

2.    Develop agreement among AMS on a standard methodology, guidelines, and tools for country assessments-- process to assure minimum standards, validity of results, and consistency of analysis across countries.

3.    Finalize the plan on how to move forward with assessments of national multi-sectoral pandemic preparedness and response in Member States.

Expected Key Workshop Outputs: 

1.      Assessment Guideline (methodology and data gathering template) ready for execution (method should specify the parameters and procedures to be followed);

2.      Regional Situation Update based on the stock-taking on AMS institutional oversight and multi-sectoral-response preparedness; and

3.      Relevant Regional Recommendations (Action Plan for the implementation of the assessment and reporting of results, and Next Steps/Way Forward—Strategic Framework development towards institutional capacity building).

Participants: 

·         Designated assessors per Member State (two persons per MS involved in coordinating non-health sector participation or in National Disaster Management Organizations)

·         One Focal Point (preferably with responsibilities for the coordination of national multi-sector preparedness and response) per MS from the Health or Disaster Sector (representing the ATWGPPR)

·         One representation each from the AEGCD and ACDM (through the Chairperson)

·         Regional Stakeholders and Partners such as UNSIC, UNOCHA and WHO

·         ASEAN Secretariat and Collaborators