Momentum in Mombasa: highlights from the 2nd Eastern Africa Dialogue Platform

Momentum in Mombasa: highlights from the 2nd Eastern Africa Dialogue Platform

Most discussions at the 2nd Eastern Africa Dialogue Platform had a clear objective in mind: that the priorities of all stakeholders were heard and used to shape the central outcome from the three days, the Mombasa Ministerial Declaration on Anticipatory Action. 

The final morning began with a high-level discussion between ministers from across the region. Their message matched that from the preceding discussions at EADP2, encapsulated by Nathan Belete, World Bank Group: “We need to make anticipatory action a core government function… with clear commitments to embed this into countries’ disaster-risk-management functions.” This must be matched by the resources and infrastructure needed, he added: pre-arranged finance, transboundary agreements and evidence-based decision-making.

“Forecasting and early warnings are only valuable when they lead to timely decisions and practical actions,” continued Dr Deborah Barasa E.G.H, Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Forestry, Kenya. “[And an] early warning without early financing is only awareness.” She set out what now must happen at the country level, focusing on Kenya’s planned next steps: turn national frameworks and roadmaps into practical plans; strengthen coordination between all those involved in this approach, from the national government to county-level authorities; and develop operational triggers that are linked to pre-agreed financing and actions. 

Representatives from the region’s governments then set out their plans to institutionalize anticipatory action. The Mombasa Ministerial Declaration will provide an overarching regional commitment for realizing these ambitions, providing eastern Africa with a robust strategy to coordinate activities and ensure that the progress seen to date continues in the future. 

The need to diversify financing streams for anticipatory action

More than 400 people from 44 countries attended EADP2 and, as they and others know, it’s impossible to avoid the topic of funding right now. With growing humanitarian needs, further resources will be needed to scale up anticipatory action, ideally in the form of sustainable, multi-year commitments. Where might these come from in eastern Africa?

Resources for anticipatory action are not yet allocated within countries’ own financial budgets, with support still being almost exclusively project- or programme-based and coming from external donors. These funding streams are unlikely to match needs in the coming years, given the wider constraints on humanitarian financing. 

Encouragingly, there are plans under way to develop new sources of financing, for example through allocating a portion of public finances (e.g., from disaster-risk funds) for anticipatory action. In Ethiopia, for example, the government is looking at ways to automatically release additional financing for anticipatory action from within its current disaster-risk-financing instruments, although these have not yet been trialled. 

To ensure sustainability, there needs to be multiple components to the financing architecture, suggested Loana Kohl, German Embassy in Kenya. National governments can support this by creating the right environment for attracting alternative sources of funds, such as from international climate or environment funds. This could include developing ‘pipelines’ of fundable programmes through which support for anticipatory action could flow, she suggested. 

How to keep frameworks fit and active

Developing an anticipatory action framework can be hard; maintaining it can be even harder. What needs to be done during the ‘readiness gap’ between a framework being developed and its triggers being met? “We are seeing little attention paid to this period,” warned Festus Yambu, Welthungerhilfe. 

During this period – which can also occur between two separate activations of the same framework – actors need to stay ready to activate. But there are challenges to realizing this, as participants during this parallel session shared. One common issue is a lack of technical capacity, for example having people in place who can regularly monitor the data used to inform triggers. This could be affected by high staff turnover in an organization, which leads to knowledge and expertise being lost. Complementing scientific data with local and indigenous knowledge is one solution to this, as the latter is consistently available over the longer term.

Funding timescales are another challenge. Most organizations have to secure fresh funding on a repeat basis, which creates a burden, as it is often a bureaucratic process. An inability to transfer funds – for example, to move them from one framework to another – also means organizations cannot always activate a hazard-specific framework, even if it is otherwise ready. This could be addressed through greater flexibility in how funding is allocated for anticipatory action: the pre-agreed sum could be available for a range of hazards, for example, rather than being tied to a single framework. This would help to ensure more frameworks stay ‘ready’ for longer. 

Another practical activity during the ‘readiness gap’ is to broaden the range of partners involved in a project. This brings in fresh ideas, while also offering the opportunity for capacity building. 

The unique problems posed by complex settings

 In many parts of eastern Africa, anticipatory action is being implemented in complex settings, with overlapping issues such as conflict, violence and displaced populations. What needs to be done in these settings for this approach to work?

“If you are about to activate – trigger fired, ready to go – and you realize there might be some protection risks in the context, would you go anyway?” asked Kim Kristensen, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), during a workshop on day two. “Or are you going to hold and get your bearings – but run the risk of missing the ‘window’ to act?”

This is a situation many practitioners face and a new guidance document, published by the Danish Refugee Council, offers ideas on how to operate in such settings and make decisions under pressure. If it’s not possible to act as planned, the advice is to modify actions based on the current situation. The guidance offers practitioners suggestions and tools which will allow them to adapt and build upon plans already in place.