A new IFRC report examines government leadership and ownership of anticipatory action

A new report, published by International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), presents new evidence of how governments can lead and take ownership of anticipatory action. Reviewing global trends in government engagement with anticipatory action, it examines how this approach has been integrated into policies, plans, forecasting capacities and financial instruments. It also highlights effective ways in which humanitarian actors, particularly National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, have supported this shift.

As the report explains, anticipatory action has now moved beyond pilot projects and proof of concept. Almost a quarter of the world’s countries now have active anticipatory action frameworks and this growing exposure has increased interest among governments.

There is now broad consensus that anticipatory action must be integrated within broader disaster-risk-management processes and systems, including government-owned systems, to reach scale and sustainability. In practice, however, the ways in which frameworks connect to existing systems is still not well understood. This raises several questions, which the report explores.

To what extent have governments integrated anticipatory action?

While government leadership is still emerging, there is increased appropriation of anticipatory action practices, concepts and tools, in part thanks to the experience gained from collaborating with humanitarian actors on anticipatory action frameworks. This is underlined in by the multiple examples outlined in the report, gleaned from the literature and key informant interviews with over 47 different organizations, including government institutions. The report also includes two in-depth studies of Madagascar and Nepal.

How could anticipatory action further be integrated?

Frameworks may provide a useful tried-and-tested blueprint, but they only become effective at scale when they slot into the machinery of existing systems. Like a cog fitting into a larger mechanism, anticipatory action frameworks must be integrated with the legal, financial, scientific and operational components of national disaster risk management. If the fit is off – if timelines, roles or funding flows don’t align, for example – activations of the frameworks stall or remains siloed.

The report includes concrete recommendations for integrating anticipatory action across existing capacities for disaster risk management, as well as examples of where these changes have already been put into practice.

The report contains several other findings:

• Governments are already taking anticipatory action based on forecasts, even if it isn’t labelled as such.  Some are developing their own frameworks and linking them to their contingency plans (e.g., Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal), while others adjust their existing plans or procedures to enable anticipatory action (e.g., Bangladesh, Madagascar, Philippines).
• Shifting ownership from humanitarian to government actors requires a different approach to funding and designing anticipatory action initiatives, with significant 'build' funding and longer timelines to close gaps in forecast reliability, data, and access to pre-arranged funding, and greater access to 'fuel' funding via pre-arranged financing instruments.
• National Societies, as auxiliaries to public authorities, play a unique role in connecting communities, humanitarian actors and government systems. Their long-term presence and volunteer networks enable continuity in planning, monitoring and implementation, as well as proximity to disaster-prone communities.

This report, written by Kim Pham, is relevant for anyone working to strengthen anticipatory action through more nationally led and sustainable approaches, such as government officials, humanitarian agencies and donors.