What will you be able to do?
From outcomes to observable evidence
asean-coordination · v0.1.0Intended outcomes
Knowledge
Explain requests, offers and confirmation of assistance.
Skills
Prepare a needs package for coordination.
Ethics
Respect receiving-state consent and context.
Character
Check shared understanding across organisations.
Practise through an activity
Assign requesting, offering and coordinating roles. Produce an information-flow diagram and one-page fictional offer record, marking consent checkpoints.
Collect evidence for assessment
- Knowledge
A process diagram distinguishing each state.
ASEAN-K- Skills
A capability-gap note with constraints.
ASEAN-S- Ethics
An explanation of consent checkpoints.
ASEAN-E- Character
A record of read-back and correction.
ASEAN-C
Project learning synthesis showing proposed outcomes, activity and evidence. This is not a university-endorsed assessment framework.
Module references:[sasop-2025][oslo-2007]
Suggested preparation: HADR foundations and people-centred assistance HADR coordination in Thailand
Read the correct SASOP edition and scope
This module cites SASOP Version 4.0, May 2025, published by the AHA Centre. Always record the edition because procedures and annexes can change. The document covers regional preparedness, situation monitoring and assistance. Our learning proposal is a three-layer reference map: Thai arrangements, ASEAN procedures and international guidance. For each operational question, identify the appropriate layer. Similar terminology across documents does not automatically establish identical powers or responsibilities.
Receiving-state leadership and consent
SASOP describes requests through the National Focal Point, directly or via the AHA Centre, and affected-state consent for ASEAN-ERAT mobilisation. In our fictional exercise, an external team is ready to travel but its capability may not match the identified gap. Learners should question scope and confirmation rather than equating readiness with permission. Keep an offer distinct from its acceptance, and show who must resolve each uncertainty in the classroom decision record.
Prepare information to match needs
Teaching proposal: summarise a capability gap in one page, including the intended result, duration, area, access constraints, language, dependence on local resources and arrival coordination. Label all exercise quantities fictional. Ask a partner team to explain what it understood without inventing missing details. Resolve differing interpretations before the next exchange. This practice develops coordination skills; it is neither an official request form nor authorisation for real deployment.
Distinguish coordination from command
Read SASOP and the Oslo Guidelines in their different contexts, especially for foreign military support. Participation in a shared coordination arrangement does not mean every organisation loses its own command chain. Our exercise uses different arrows for information, support requests and command. Each role-player checks the arrows affecting their organisation. Finish by listing questions requiring confirmation from the actual competent authority; do not fill these gaps by guessing or importing another country's procedure.
See the process at a glance
A synthesized learning diagram. Read it alongside the lesson and original sources.
Identify the gap
Describe the missing capability and existing capacity constraints.
Check the channel
Locate relevant roles in SASOP and Thai documents.
Confirm scope
Separate offers, acceptance and unresolved conditions.
Maintain coordination
Read back understanding, update status and plan handover.
Explore a decision
Fictional scenario: an overseas team offers assistance, but the receiving side has not confirmed it. What is the best next step?
An offerer's readiness is not receiving-state consent. The exercise must preserve confirmation and scope checkpoints.
From knowledge to evidence
Assign requesting, offering and coordinating roles. Produce an information-flow diagram and one-page fictional offer record, marking consent checkpoints.
| Criterion | Proficient | Developing |
|---|---|---|
| Scope and consent | Clearly distinguishes offer, acceptance and mobilisation | Skips receiving-side confirmation |
| Supporting information | States capability gaps and constraints | Lists equipment without explaining needs |
| Shared communication | Checks and resolves differing interpretations | Leaves abbreviations or roles ambiguous |
A proposed rubric for educators to adapt, not a university accreditation standard.
Check your understanding
Answer all 5 questions, then review the explanations. This score is for self-study.
References & further verification
- SASOP: Standard Operating Procedure for Regional Standby Arrangements and Coordination of Joint Disaster Relief and Emergency Response Operations ↗ASEAN / AHA Centre · Version 4.0, May 2025
III–V; V.A paras 21–23, V.B paras 24–27; mobilisation and JOCCA; record of changes p. iii - Oslo Guidelines: Guidelines on the Use of Foreign Military and Civil Defence Assets in Disaster Relief ↗United Nations OCHA; official document hosted by IFRC Disaster Law · Revision 1.1, November 2007
Definitions para 5; Principles and concepts paras 20–34; UN-agency use of MCDA para 32
Cite this module
PK-Research. (2026). Connecting Thailand with ASEAN mechanisms (asean-coordination, v0.1.0). HADR–CPX Knowledge Commons. https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/modules/asean-coordination/