Submitted by Marie Wagner, Viola Akoth Otieno and Ibrahim Shameel
9 Oct 2024

Do we need to mainstream anticipatory action, ensure it is locally led – or both?

Take 2...

One of the dominant themes at the 11th Global Dialogue Platform in 2023 was locally led anticipatory action. This year, the focus is how we can mainstream anticipatory action “within national and regional structures and systems". 

But can these two ambitions work in parallel? Can an approach be both locally led and mainstreamed at the national level? In part two of this blog, we share more thoughts from experts within the anticipatory action community. You can share your own at this year’s Global Dialogue Platform: register online now

In recent months, there has been a lot of attention on the need for anticipatory action to be locally led. What does this mean in practice? 

Ibrahim Shameel, Maldivian Red Crescent: 

“It means centring anticipatory action around local knowledge, understanding local level needs and capacities – and empowering local-level actors to make decisions about anticipatory action, as opposed to a top-down interventions.” 

Marie Wagner, Welthungerhilfe (WHH): 

“As with any other humanitarian approach, local leadership requires a shift of agency and decision-making power. In practice, this often means that the approach to developing an anticipatory action system – defining a trigger mechanism, or prioritizing specific actions – diverge from the classic guidelines.  

“In WHH’s projects, we see that locally led approaches require more flexibility and adaptive thinking, which can make things more challenging. But it also offers possibilities for more sustainable and effective anticipatory action systems in the longer term.”  

Watch a short video about how WHH listens to local communities when planning and delivering anticipatory action

Play Video

We need your consent to load the Youtube Video service!

We use Youtube Video to embed content that may collect data about your activity. Please review the details and accept the service to see this content.

powered by Usercentrics Consent Management Platform

Several dialogue platforms in 2024 have looked at how to mainstream anticipatory action at the national level. Why does this mainstreaming need to happen? 

Viola Akoth Otieno, African Union: 

“A decisive component of successful anticipatory action is pre-agreed financing. Mainstreaming anticipatory action at the national level remains the most viable source of sustainable financing in the long run – especially in the increasingly complex landscape of growing humanitarian crises, intricate geopolitics and macroeconomics. 

“This decision can be a tough call, especially for developing countries with many competing priorities and inadequate resources. But mainstreaming anticipatory action at the national level also creates an opportunity: to integrate this approach within wider strategies for disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, long-term development and resilience-building.” 

Marie: 

“While high levels of diversity and expertise in the field remain vital, having multiple unconnected mechanisms can cause confusion at best, or create adverse structures at worst. With a growing field, the risk of an unconnected ‘mushrooming’ of small-scale mechanisms must be proactively prevented. This can be done through coordination, and thus a certain level of mainstreaming.  

“Elevating the role of national actors, and allowing them to shape the way forward for their country, is the most conducive way to ensure that everyone is involved in developing anticipatory action mechanisms, and that these align with national policies and frameworks.” 

Our dialogue platforms are instructive, thought-provoking and demanding conferences, which bring together experts from diverse fields to challenge and improve the anticipatory approach.

Marie Wagner WHH

So, the big question: can anticipatory action be mainstreamed nationally – within government processes, ongoing disaster-risk-reduction programmes or National Red Cross and Red Crescent Society Plans – and, at the same time, locally led? Or do these ambitions pull in different directions? 

Viola:  

“It is true, these ambitions are seemingly pulling in different directions. But they are pulling in exactly the different directions we want them to pull for strengthened, holistic, integrated and, most importantly, sustainable anticipatory action. It’s the Chi, the Yin and Yang, the duality of anticipatory action that is essential for a harmonious balance between individual (or locally led) and collective (or mainstreamed) proactive action towards mitigating disaster impacts. 

“Disaster risk reduction is a shared responsibility across individuals, communities, governments and the international community. Simultaneous bottom-up and top-down approaches ensures a more comprehensive and integrated overall approach, one that will hopefully lead to a more seamless and effective implementation by all stakeholders.”  

Shameel: 

“Mainstreaming anticipatory action nationally and locally will complement the overall process, rather than creating conflict. National-level mainstreaming will allow for the integration of this approach at a policy level, and in a coherent manner, whole also opening mechanisms for resource mobilization and institutional support. At a local level, mainstreaming will facilitate tailored, context-specific systems that are based on local knowledge and expertise.  

“When done simultaneously, national policies will empower local actors – who will be supported by the necessary frameworks and resources being in place – while still allowing for local autonomy in decision-making, which will lead to more effective and relevant actions.” 

Marie: 

“On the contrary, these two levels are both required and not contradictory – if they are played out in complementarity. I would even argue that it requires engagement at more than national and local levels to further develop anticipatory action – and each can play a specific role.  

“For example, we need ambitious advocacy at international and regional (but, frankly, all) levels to allow for more conducive and substantive structures for disaster risk reduction. We need national frameworks that link data for national contingency plans to provincial implementation plans, and to concrete anticipatory actions that help prevent the humanitarian impacts of predictable extreme events.  

“And crucially: we need to adapt these activities to local realities and capacities, as it is the same people who will be affected by a hazard who must act in advance.” 

The push for national-level mainstreaming will be a major topic at the upcoming Global Dialogue Platform. What do you hope will be the outcomes from these conversations? 

Marie: 

“My wish is that these different levels are strategically played out to complement each other. Anticipatory action is a growing field, and we can take advantage of each actor’s strengths. For example, governments can reach out to larger organizations to concentrate on strengthening the fundamental structures of disaster risk reduction, engaging in regional learning processes and debates, and supporting the integration of anticipatory action in national policy discussions.  

“At the same time, smaller organizations – especially those with local representatives and access – can focus on supporting more local structures to ensure their experiences feed into national ambitions. In all our conversations during the Global Dialogue Platform, I invite everyone to challenge each other in open conversations and proactively suggest improvements to how we move forward with anticipatory action.” 

Thanks to the respondents for sharing their reflections with us. You can share your own thoughts – on this and many other subjects – at the 12th Global Dialogue Platform. Register now!