Early Warning - Early Action Mechanisms for Rapid Decision Making

Early Warning - Early ActionMechanisms for rapid decision making

From EW to EA


Conceptual Framework

What is Early Action?‘Different’, not just ‘Earlier’

1. Any humanitarian response to a slow-onset disaster is a late response2. Early action requires a paradigm shift3. Response to indications of a potential crisis from EWS data4. Action that protects livelihoods and prevents disaster within particularly vulnerable

livelihoods zones or hotspots5. Refers to a wide range of possible activities, depending on projected scenarios, and the

particular context. 6. Closely linked to resilience-building7. Likely to be most effective if multi-sectoral 8. Timing is critical9. Must have ‘no-regrets’

Cost effectiveness calculations all agree: preventive actions are much cheaper than responses

The components of the system

Early Warning SystemsThree components: 1. A process to monitor indicators, 2. a contextualised analysis of their values and trends, 3. the means to communicate these findings.

Such systems can be based on:• local observations and traditional knowledge, • a highly technical approach based on analysis of remote sensing data.

National early warning systems often combine elements from both these approaches.Reports may be seasonal, annual or biannual EWS must provide rolling analysis, generated on a monthly basis or even more frequently.

An important distinction:a warning : which considers future risk

a surveillance system: which provides a snapshot of the current situation

Key Characteristics of EWS

They are trustedThey are accountable and transparent

They are nationally owned, inclusive and have a clear mandateThey produce appropriate products

They communicate results effectively

National PlatformA national forum where decision-makers from all stakeholder groups agree on

the appropriate early warning indicators, thresholds for action, process for contingency planning, funding and types of action appropriate at different

phases in different contexts

Predictive capacity of EWSSuggestion: Measuring predictive capacity of existing system and confidence but... keep in mind that:1. EW outputs must be contextualized (R=H*V/C): need to assess

predictive capacity of different EWS over different timescales 2. Changes in livelihood patterns and climate are not yet very well

understood: need for localised data that is regularly updated 3. A few aspects remain unpredictable (impact at HH level, predict what

depends on human interaction)

ConclusionBe realistic in our expectations from EWS outputs and this should not stop us from turning them into EA because…… the cost benefit of preventive action far outweighs the risk of getting it wrong – even getting it wrong several times over

4 levels of predictions

Indicators should detect a deviation from the normal trend early enough to provide operational lead-time and with enough confidence to activate release of funds.

Communicating the Early WarningAlerts should be produced on a rolling basis

They should be released immediately after data compiled and analysedThey should include a measure of severity and indication of trend direction

They should take the specific needs of the audience(s) into account

The warning must be specific in terms of:1.targeted geographical area(s), 2.livelihood group(s), 3. timeframe of the prediction, 4. level of confidence

EW messages must reach the affected population through appropriate media and/ actors (credibility and legitimacy) and be TECHNICALLY and CULTURALLY appropriate. Complexity of the targeted audience must be taken into consideration.

Triggering Early Action

• Trigger is a deviation from normal• Complexity of setting triggers when several indicators are used importance of minimizing the number of indicators used• Indicators need to be agreed in advance• Need to distinguish chronic from acute situations

“NORMAL” Not a fixed point or value: A range of values Specific to the context (international standards not always applicable,

except a few indicators like malnutrition rate) Take into consideration seasonal variations Reference year more difficult to identify in a changing context

Triggering Early ActionQuantitative indicators :can have a wide range of values. A threshold or boundary in this range of values can serve as a trigger for action. Once the threshold is exceeded, predetermined decision rules activate a change in the planned activities.

Qualitative indicators:it is more challenging to set thresholds, but the same principle applies: a deviation from the normal pattern – of migration, for example – serves as an indication of change, and programme activities may need to changeas a consequence.

Most indicators vary seasonally and from place to place• complexity of defining ‘normal’ parameters

• Importance of contextualisation

Trigger Thresholds

The same indicator, in two different locations, or for two different livelihoods groups, may have different thresholds as well as values, in relation to the

normal range for that context

Trigger IndicatorsObjective, consistent and predictive

ContextualisedAs few as possible

Jointly owned, within national platformAgreed in advance

Tied to specific actions, responsibilities and funding

Indicator formats:1. Individual events: e.g. disease outbreak, population displacement

2. Continuous range: e.g. temperature, rainfall3. Stepped scale: e.g. IPC scale

Planning for Early Action2 strategies

1. Predictive outcome analysis: examine EWS data, including livelihoods data, look at similar years, establish likely outcomes to guide decision making about appropriate protection and mitigation measures.

2. Response option analysis: look at a range of possible interventions to address a single identified problem Need to reflect local context and expectations Critical part of Contingency Planning process

The “Good enough programming” approachIt is better to start early, on the basis of ‘good enough’ information, and monitor the situation as it develops, modifying the response as necessary, rather than spending time designing a ‘perfect’ programme in an imperfect and rapidly changing world.

Response Planning Process

1. Develop detailed scenarios2. Map livelihoods calendars3. Determine strategic objectives4. Select appropriate interventions5. Identify priorities and partners6. Map start-up timelines and decision points7. Communicate to communities and partners

Should be hosted within development programmes: not a ‘humanitarian’ activityShould involve all relevant stakeholders

Should be led by government

EA needs a coordinated cross-sector approach

Contingency plans must be developed collaborativelyAll triggers and response options should be agreed in advance

Donors should be involved and funding attached to response optionsPlans should be multi-sectoral

Health and Education sectors often affected by drought but receive little support1. Indicators are “late” and can’t be used as triggers2. Education not a priority for humanitarian donors

ConclusionEA in health and education sectors requires to use indicators/triggers from another sector need coordination between actors and sectors

Funding for EAThe trend & challenges

Donor dilemmaSome donors say they are waiting for agencies to demonstrate innovation.

Operational agencies point to donors’ preference for evidence-based, proven approaches. Status quo will not allow EA programming to reach the scale it needs to be effective

Dilemma can only be solved through: 1) open dialogue, 2) risk taking

Multiple contingency funds: begs the question, what is the best process for risk management and accountability?

Donors support the concepts of managing risk and no regrets programming, but they are not yet comfortable with funding these approaches

systematicallyGenerally, there is more flexibility available within previously agreed

programmes, as long as the dialogue between the partners remains open

Flexible funding for EAWay forward

1. Open debate to governments and link/align Contingency Funds (CF) with government budget

2. Release of CF must be transparent, accountable and (where possible) decentralized

3. Activation mechanisms must be pre-agreed4. Define SOPs to guide decision making based on agreed triggers and

contingency plans5. Accelerate the sign-off process to approve the action is the focus6. CF must be tied to people and organisations that are already on the ground

with demonstrated capacity, contextual understanding, and actual programmes on which to build

Safety Nets

Expanding social protection

Can be triggered or up scaled in different ways: Increase the level of protection (the amount, the ration) for the target

population; Change the timing of distributions to make them more appropriate to the

identified hazard; If the safety net already reaches the extremely vulnerable, pre-register the

‘next-most-vulnerable’ – the ‘almost qualifying’, and include them in the distribution once the threshold is exceeded;

Expand the safety net to qualifying populations in other at-risk areas not currently covered.

The Surge Model

Familiar in the humanitarian sector

Could also be used in development programs for chronic problems or recurrent shocks

Can be used only where minimum services and enough actors to provide all additional required resources (staff, drugs, materiel…)

“Easy” with static communities. More emphasis should be placed in finding models for nomadic populations

Contingency Plans Owned by government Made in advance of warnings Take a no-regrets approach Aligned with national development plans Realistic strategies for human resource surge capacity Specific about funding sources – linked to actions Specific to context and audience Includes comprehensive response analysis options Flexible, in terms of locations and types of response Realistic, in terms of agency capacity to deliver Builds on existing frameworks and structures – no parallel Includes detailed risk analysis, takes a do-no-harm approach

The enabling environmentCoherence, Integration and Alignment• Better integration of climate change adaptation, resilience, EWS and

emergency response• Multi-sectoral planning and response• Vertical integration from regional, through national, to sub-national,

operational and community levels in all parts of the system (communication of early warning alerts, analysis of their implications, preparation of contingency plans)

• Improved integration of humanitarian and development actors, within each sector and within institutions (especially donors, governments, INGOs)

Improvements in coordination, information management and leadership are urgently needed and critically important

The enabling environment

Commitment to flexibility and willingness to compromise.

National platforms Must shift from communication of information to coordinated decision-making:

• Indicator identification• Threshold setting• Advocating for flexible and appropriate financing• Agreeing surge capacity needs and models• Coordinating common approaches to contingency planning • Activating early action


Platforms need to exist within an appropriate legal framework

Local platforms Platforms should be strengthened at level of local administration:

• Should reach down to the community• Should incorporate community analysis and local level livelihoods

analysis into EWS• Should feed analysis into national platform• Should be linked to contingency funds• Should coordinate contingency planning, involving all relevant

stakeholders


Key characteristics:• Puts vulnerable communities at the heart of decision making• Has national and local platforms led by government• Exist within a legal framework• Support dialogue between wide variety of actors• Rewards compromise• Prioritise common goals• Values openness and transparency• Emphasises evidence over opinion or politics


The Regional State of Things

Regional level coordination

Safety Net Programmes

Insurance mechanisms

Risk facilities

Surge Mechanisms

The state of EW-EA Systems

IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI) and Regional Disaster Resilience Sustainability Platform • Regional Programming Framework Paper

• Country Programming Papers

Global Alliance for Action for Drought Resilience and Growth

Food Security and Nutrition Working Group (FSNWG) Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWSNET)

Regional Coordination Systems

Regional Coordination Systems

Regional Level added value:

Joint Planning and Joint Knowledge Management (e.g. Supporting the Horn of Africa’s Resilience - SHARE, Dryland Learning and Capacity Initiative – DLCI)

Regional Inter-Agency Working Groups (e.g. Inter-Agency Working Group on Disaster Preparedness, Inter-Agency Network on Education in Emergencies)

National Systems - Ethiopia Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector (DRMFSS)

Early Warning and Response Directorate (EWRD)

Livelihoods, Early Assessment and Protection Index (LEAP)

• Converts agro-meteorological data into crop and rangeland estimates

• Transparent and verifiable data to trigger contingency funds Seasonal Food Security Assessment

• Multi-agency seasonal food security assessment

• Focused on food-based responses

• Separates chronic needs from acute conditions

• Only once a year, political

National Systems - Kenya

National Drought Management Authority (NDMA)

• EWS combines data from community level with remote imaging data, compared against long-term trends and norms

Devolution to County government:

• 2 officers in each county

• Capacity concerns

• Political interference: Turkana, Wajir

Kenya Food Security Steering Group (KFSSG)

Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) includes contingency fund and Risk Financing Mechanism

Hunger Safety Net Programme (HSNP) and its second phase, surge capacity built in, slow implementation

FAO, UNICEF and WFP Joint Strategy for Building Community Resilience in Karamoja – Safety Net Component

Safety Net Programmes

African Risk Capacity (ARC) Index-Based Livestock Insurance Horn of Africa Risk Transfer for

Adaptation (HARITA) R4 Rural Resilience Initiatives

Insurance Schemes

La Niña Consortium – Oxfam (lead), Concern, VSF-G, and ACTED – in 2013 activated in:• Ramu – conflict (100,000 euros – ACTED) • Isiolo – Livestock disease outbreak (9,000 euros – VSF-S)• Moyale – lumpi-skin disease outbreak (10,000 euros –

Concern)• Wajir – conflict (53,000 euros – Oxfam)• Moyale – Clan conflict (150,000 euros – Concern)

Risk Facilities

Uganda and Kenya Red Cross – surge capacity into the health and water sectors in Turkana and Karamoja

Concern – surge model in the health sector in Marsabit County for community based management of malnutrition

Surge programming


Ways Forward

Development of the evidence base and improvement of the analysis Common situation analysis, quantification of predictive capacity,

evidence for working with riskDevelopment of protocols and decision making processes

Common triggers, processes for triggering and accountability, alignment with government process, harmonization of decision making

Implementation of a risk management approach, including funding to improve alignment and coordination

Advocacy for working with risk, preparedness funds and agreed acceptable probability of risk levels, coordination of EA funding under local government

The Need for Investment

Further development of working surge models

Strengthening of platforms at national, regional and global levels

Strengthening of internal capacity for synergies between humanitarian and development programs

Increasing community engagement with early warning and contingency planning

Building on information sharing, dissemination and learning forums

Analysis of conflict variants in early warning and surge models

The Need for Investment

Between Our Organisations Technical WG to agree on

analysis of risk, triggers and actions

Collaborative research Joint actions and programming

on EW EA

Ongoing Actions

At Regional Level Redefinition of the roles and functions of

FSNWG emphasizing decision making

EW EA Research and action agenda reporting into IGAD and the FSNWG

EWEA Sub-Group of FSNWG

Coordination by IAWG agencies around potential programme to support “institutional strengthening for timely and effective response to potential drought emergencies”

Ongoing Actions

At Country Level Adoption of crisis modifiers/

flexible funding within programming built on best practice

Scaling up and replicating proven and innovative models e.g. La Nina consortium second phase

Country Level dissemination plans and learning events through Q3 Q4 2014

Ongoing Actions

Advocacy: 3 years after 2011 drought, still a long way to go- system failure and risk of relapse• Lack of involvement of development actors: Addressing chronic disasters and

vulnerabilities requires long term investment and planning. It has to embedded and part of the development agenda- disaster resilience.

• Need for donors to change their approach and to provide incentives for early actions, for example, by demanding that agencies include early action plans in development programmes, or that response plans are jointly developed and owned.

• We are all accountable for the lack of progress made over the past 3 years, despite lots of talks, meetings, coordination. Very little progress yet, and we are all part of the system failure.

Ongoing Actions

Target audience: Regional: Africa Platform, AU,

IGAD IDRSSI Global: WHS, Sendai 2015, Post

2015 agenda UNGA next week/ IASC Connect local to global

Ongoing Actions


Thank you!

Questions?

Full report to be downloaded: http://reliefweb.int/report/ethiopia/early-warning-early-action-east-africa-mechanisms-rapid-decision-making

http://reliefweb.int/report/ethiopia/early-warning-early-action-east-africa-mechanisms-rapid-decision-making



Government & Nonprofit

Early Warning - Early Action Mechanisms for Rapid Decision Making