The applicability of anticipatory action against future crises

As humanitarian disasters continue to increase, so does the demand for aid. In 2019, it was reported there was a 40% shortfall in funding for the humanitarian sector, funding which is crucial in supporting the 131.7 million people requiring humanitarian assistance in the same year (ReliefWeb, 2019). This gap in funding highlights a need for an alternative approach. – One which can maximize positive action whilst doing so within the boundaries of the resources available. Humanitarian action is often deployed following a crisis, despite warning signs, which sometimes signal the approaching disaster. This post-crisis response is attributed to multiple factors; bureaucracy, access to funds, and the political landscape (Pitchon, 2019).

• The system is typically set in motion when humanitarian needs can be quantified, rather than when alerts are raised. Although timeliness is a key criterion of humanitarian effectiveness, evaluations rarely lay out timelines between when leading indicators or forecasts began signalling a deteriorating situation and when humanitarian support reached the people affected (Pitchon, 2019).

However, recently, we are seeing traction being gained in the development of anticipatory humanitarian action. Anticipatory action (A-A) uses risk evidence and frameworks to predict an oncoming crisis, and initiates aid prior to its occurrence. Through A-A, humanitarian efforts can protect populations more effectively, save more lives, and better utilize the impact of funds (CERF, 2020). Currently, there is insufficient evidence to advance the implementation of A-A on a larger scale (Pitchon, 2019), although, organizations are pushing for progress in this area. Since the second half of 2019, The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has beenpiloting collective A-A frameworks, in a variety of contexts,in order todevelop an evidence base. Additionally, the piloting will be used to develop effective systems with regards to finance, programming, coordination, policy and other factors which will need to be secure in order to scale-up A-A.These anticipatory action pilots are covering slow-onset disasters, sudden-onset shocks, and disease outbreaks (CERF, 2020). Prevention of suffering In February 2020, US$80 million dollars was committed towards anticipatory action from the United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), of which US$5 million was allocated to Bangladesh (Centre for Humdata, 2020). Bangladesh is part of the OCHA’s piloting program (CERF, 2020). Severe levels of rainfall during the monsoon season (June-September) in Bangladesh leaves the country extremely vulnerable to flooding; roughly 25% of the country becomes submerged during this period (Centre for Humdata, 2020). 15,000 people have died during these storms and floods within the past 25 years, and 150 million people have been affected (CERF, 2020). On July 4, 2020, a warning was issued predicting a high probability of flooding in Bangladesh. This warning served as the trigger for CERF to release US$5.2 million to organizations who would prepare for the predicted floods. These organizations were the World Food Programme (WFP), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The funds allowed the organizations to prepare for the distribution of cash, livestock feed, storage drums, as well as hygiene, dignity, and health kits (Centre for Humdata, 2020). A few days following the warning, a second trigger was reached, and the organizations were able to deliver the supplies to 200,000 people. The A-A in this context proved effective in mitigating the impacts of the flood. From a humanitarian perspective, anticipatory action has proven to have positive results within this pilot. The economy of anticipatory action A study by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), investigating the impacts of early humanitarian action and resilience building during droughts in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia, shows the financial benefits of A-A (USAID, 2018). This study found that 30% of humanitarian aid spending could be saved through earlier intervention in the regions. Additionally, if an early humanitarian response were to be adopted, it could save an estimated US$965 million from the cost of response within a 15-year period (Cabot Venton, 2018). These strategies would reduce humanitarian aid by up to US$3 for every US$1 spent. Evidently, the financial benefit of early intervention and resilience-building to droughts within Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia are vast (USAID, 2018). Reduced financial costs also allow for funds to become available to redistribute to other causes (USAID, 2018). Of course, as well as presenting positive economic output, this type of aid supports the livelihoods of the people, preserves their dignity, and reduces suffering. Heading in the right direction Although frameworks are still being developed in order to deploy anticipatory action within a broader context, ongoing pilots and studies are proving to show promising results. Organizations are beginning to pay more attention to A-A approaches, and there is a shift towards this type of aid in the bid to maximize the success of humanitarian efforts (Weingärtner et al, 2020). The three areas which need to be furthered in the development of anticipatory action are: 1) greater investment in monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) systems, 2) development of analytical frameworks, and 3) a focus on improving models (Weingärtner et al, 2020). Ultimately, the results of creating solid frameworks for anticipatory action can have profound effects on both systematic and individual levels (Weingärtner et al, 2020). This shows a promising move in the right direction for the deployment of sustainable humanitarian aid, where anticipatory action can become more widely implemented, and be used to better support people across the globe.