01. Scope possibilities for anticipatory action

There are several ways to inform yourself and your National Society about Anticipatory action basics and to better understand the approach.

• Reach out to the Anticipation Hub, the IFRC , the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre , German Red Cross, or any other Partner National Society and request a virtual introduction session for your National Society and/or senior management staff.
• Attend a national, regional or a global dialogue platform. These platforms usually include an introductory session.
• Participate in a regional training. For example, IFRC facilitates introductory trainings on anticipatory action. For more information, please reach out to your colleagues at the IFRC country or regional office.
• Join an e-learning course. The IFRC developed a course “Anticipatory Action: A Proactive Approach to Disaster Risk Management” and partners like FAO, WFP and START Network also have great introductions to anticipatory action. toolbox below.
• Various introductory materials are linked in the toolbox below and in the library (e.g., brochures and presentations on FbF).
• To get an impression of the basic concepts and mechanisms as well as operational entry points to anticipatory action, make sure you have also read the introduction and first chapter of this Manual.

For all the following steps, it is crucial to appoint a focal point within the National Society. Ideally, this person is close to the decision-making level and is involved in disaster risk management within the National Society. Initial tasks for the focal point can include:

• leading discussions on what approach to take with regards to anticipatory action
• leading initial discussions on how to integrate anticipatory action into existing plans and mechanisms
• supporting the scoping study, if applicable (e.g., supporting data collection, arranging meetings, providing documents)
• advocating for anticipatory action and onboarding the National Society’s leadership

The focal point should arrange meetings, workshops, or discussions on what approach to take with anticipatory action. It is important to foster ownership of the anticipatory action approach at the political and strategic level, starting with the National Society president and secretary general and board members. The leadership should support the vision of integrating anticipatory action into the National Society’s disaster risk management strategies, as the National Society will be more successful in advocating for anticipatory action with the government if it is institutionalized within its own strategies and plans. In the toolbox below and the library you will find induction material. You can also revisit the guidance on how to build messages in chapter 2 of the manual.

How to understand whether anticipatory action is a good fit at this point in time

The list below provides some questions that can be discussed internally before you start working on anticipatory action or a scoping study process. The engagement in anticipatory action, such as developing a full or simplified EAP (sEAP), can shape strategies, build capacities and create buy-in across the organization. However, these questions help clarify whether anticipatory action is relevant, realistic, and provides added value in your specific question. You don’t need to answer all the questions with “yes” in order to move forward. Rather, these reflections support a strategic discussion on whether to pursue anticipatory action at this stage.

Questions to help you decide whether to start working on anticipatory action

• Commitment and motivation
  • Is your National Society’s senior management motivated and willing to commit to anticipatory action? Are they willing to commit 1.5 years to development and to subsequent maintenance of the system?
  • EAP development is based on research and scientific analysis. Is your National Society open to exploring this data driven approach to program design?
• Partnerships and resources
  • Are there other organizations working on anticipatory action in your country?
  • Is there an ongoing anticipatory action regional programme your National Society could join?
  • Is a Partner National Society interested and available to support you in this process?
  • Are there countries within your region who have submitted s/EAPs, or have already begun setting up anticipatory action systems, that experience similar hazards?
  • Do communities see the value of acting in the window between a hazard forecast and impact?
• Strategies and mechanisms
  • How could anticipatory action add value to your National Society’s existing strategies and programmes?
  • What are potential institutional barriers to anticipatory action? How would you overcome them?
• Existing capacities within the National Society (Note: These are not a prerequisite as these could be worked on in the scope of the anticipatory action process)
  • Does your National Society have the capacity to dedicate at least one member of staff to manage anticipatory action efforts?
  • Does your National Society have experience in developing contingency and emergency response plans? Are these plans tested?
  • Does your National Society have a solid volunteer base that can be mobilized within a short time (e.g. 24 to 48 hours for fast-onset hazards)?
  • Do you have a (good) relationship with the government, hydro-meteorological services and other stakeholders that could support in accessing country-level risk data (e.g., historical disaster data, vulnerability, exposure, and data related to conflict, violence, inequality, etc. as relevant)?

If you are considering the implementation of anticipatory action focused on an area that is experiencing conflict or other types of fragility, there can be additional concerns regarding institutional capacity and operational feasibility. Refer to the “Anticipatory action in fragile, conflict-affected and violent settings” toolkit’s Module 1 on feasibility studies, included in the toolbox below, for additional guiding questions in such settings.

If after your discussions you decide to start working on anticipatory action, it is recommended to revisit chapter 1 and broadly explore how anticipatory action could be operationalized. Keep in mind though that, as explained in chapter 1, the different approaches to anticipatory action are not rigidly distinct but complement and build on each other: Using an imminent DREF, for example, may serve as a stepping stone toward s/EAP development or as a testing ground for early actions that would later be formalized in a more structured framework.

The definitive decision on which approach to take does not have to be taken at this stage and can be informed by the outcome of a potential scoping study (see next step). However, reflecting on suitable and realistic entry points might already provide a valuable orientation for a National Society in which direction to move.

Questions to help you reflect which entry points to anticipatory action would be suitable in your context

Existing practice and experience:

• In which areas does the National Society in general have extensive operational experience with relevant programming and related capacities?
• Do you have experience with an imminent DREF as a response DREF? Would it be possible to implement early actions instead? What experience does the National Society have with community-based disaster risk management, community early warning systems, and community action planning through EVCA?
• Would you have the capacity to implement anticipatory action in an area that has not been preselected as needed for, e.g. EAPs and imminent DREF?

Institutional and governmental environment:

• Is there a national or subnational anticipatory action framework in place that could be built upon, e.g. by the government or other humanitarian actors?
• Does the government express interest in risk-informed or forecast-based action?
• Does the National Society have established partnerships with other National Societies or other partners that have experience with anticipatory action?

Funding landscape:

• Are there any institutionalized funding mechanisms for anticipatory action at the national or subnational level?
• Are crisis modifiers or contingency funds already embedded in ongoing programmes?
• Do you have experience with an imminent DREF or a response DREF?

Scale and ambition:

• Is the objective to test anticipatory action in a limited geographic area or to establish a formalized, multi-year framework?
• Does the National Society aim to strengthen community-level resilience, national systems, or both?

Once you have a general commitment to work on anticipatory action and a rough orientation on potential entry points, the next steps of this Manual will help you decide whether you want to do a scoping study or not. If you have funding for a study now (or other reasons why a study now would be good) but the timing is not ideal for the National Society, you can carry out the scoping study and then start your anticipatory action programme at a more suitable time; however, be aware that some of the analysis in the scoping study might change over time (e.g. available data, forecasts or staff capacity).

Now that your National Society has decided to start an Anticipatory action program, you should decide whether you will first conduct a scoping study. A study can be a good starting point for building an Anticipatory action system, but it also requires significant investment of time and resources. If you decide not to do a scoping study, you can proceed with chapter 2 Engage your stakeholders and 3 Set up an anticipatory action programme.

What is the value of a scoping study?

A scoping study should provide your National Society a roadmap for anticipatory action. It entails the collection and analysis of information upon which recommendations for the set-up of a anticipatory action system in general and (simplified) EAPs in particular can be made. The roadmap and recommendations should include the following aspects:

• Priority hazards

Based on an analysis of community priorities, past impacts, available forecasts, the National Society’s operational capacity, mandate and priorities, the scoping study should rank potential hazards, outlining why some hazards are preferred over others.

• Data availability and gaps

The study should give a broad overview of available risk data (e.g. past impact, vulnerability, capacity and exposure data) for the country and recommend which data gaps to fill or where to look for further data.

• Funding mechanism

The study should recommend whether to start with a simplified or a full EAP or, if this emerged from the initial reflections, a different pathway might even be the most suitable option in that context (see chapter 2). In some cases, it might already be clear that skill analyses (assessments of the quality of forecasts) are not available for the full EAP. Hence, for the priority hazards, recommendations regarding the s/EAP should be included.

• Operational and institutional capacity building needs

This section should pinpoint challenges with regards to operational and institutional capacity and outline plans to build those capacities. For example, would current logistics and finance systems allow implementation of early actions to be adopted in the lead time of the selected hazard? How experienced is the National Society in data collection, protection, gender and inclusion (PGI), community engagement and accountability (CEA), MEAL processes or managing funds from the DREF? This analysis could be based on assessments such as the Preparedness for Effective Response (PER; please find documentation of linkages between PER and anticipatory action below in the toolbox). Moreover, recommendations should be made on how to institutionalize anticipatory action within strategies and plans of the National Society to ensure sustainability.

• Strategic collaborations with stakeholders

This section should include a stakeholder analysis and recommend stakeholders to be strategically engaged in the anticipatory action process. Be sure to consider stakeholders with subject matter expertise, such as agriculture, social protection, education, migration, health and many others. The analysis should include a small policy environment analysis and point out mandates, existing MoUs and partnerships, and potential interests in collaboration.

• Potential early actions

Depending on the depth of the analysis, the scoping study can brainstorm potential early actions based on the analysis of National Society experiences or conversations with communities and other stakeholders. Showcasing potential early actions and how these could reduce hazard impacts helps to make the case for anticipatory action when sharing the results of the study.

A scoping study is not a prerequisite for starting an anticipatory action process. If you see little added value in collecting the information outlined above (e.g. because you have a good overview over those aspects already), you can skip conducting a scoping study. However, aside from the data provided by such an assessment, there are co-benefits of conducting a study:

• Establishing contact with stakeholders/relationship building: A scoping study offers the possibility to begin engaging with other stakeholders on the topic of anticipatory action especially when the focal point is present in all the interviews.
• Capacity building: The focal point and other staff of the National Society can use the study as a learning opportunity by technically and logistically supporting the data collection, reviewing report drafts.
• Reference document: The study can serve as a reference document, e.g. needs assessment, to design a project proposal or to generate buy-in within the National Society or other stakeholders. To ensure this, it is crucial that the study is validated and endorsed by the leadership and other stakeholders like government agencies.

Before starting the study, consider what type of support you need for the scoping study:

• Who could support your study, e.g. financially or technically?
• Are there partners, e.g. UN or NGOs who would be interested in a joint study? If possible, organize a meeting in an existing forum to scout these options.
• Who needs to be involved from the National Society and perhaps other movement partners? In some countries, it proved successful to establish steering committees for the study that consist of staff of the host National Society, a Partner National Society and the IFRC at national level.
• If there is a possibility that you will be working in a conflict setting, be sure to involve the ICRC delegation in your country in the planning from the beginning.

The first step of any study is to make a plan for data collection and analysis. As your budget will be a major determinant of how much you can do, begin by establishing how much you are able to spend. Within that budget, prioritize your objectives, and set the scope and timeline. It is also important to think about which partners should be involved, and what their role should be. For example, if there are other organizations considering or already working on anticipatory action, it may make sense to build upon their knowledge or conduct joint studies. If anticipatory action is new in your country, the scoping study can be an excellent opportunity to start sharing knowledge with stakeholders and holding informed discussions on the concept. Each of these components – budget, objectives, scope, timing, and partner involvement – will be documented in the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the study. You find different sample ToR in the toolbox below with a focus on EAP development.

The study usually consists of three phases which should be broadly outlined in the ToR:

• A desk review phase to review existing data and reports that gathers secondary data and informs the in-situ data collection
• A primary data collection phase in which data is collected through stakeholder interviews such as government actors or NGOs (including community-based organizations), through visits to high-risk communities or through interviews and discussions with the National Society (especially senior management and disaster management department) and other Red Cross Red Crescent movement partners. In many cases, the primary data collection phase also includes a workshop to present initial finding and brainstorm design ideas.
• A report writing and validation phase, in which the information is consolidated in a report with design recommendations. This phase usually includes some rounds of feedback loops of which one can be a presentation of the final results to the National Society and potentially external stakeholders that were involved in the study.

Note: Below steps provide guidance on how to do the study, what information to collect and what questions to ask. This can be helpful in designing the ToR. The person conducting the study may also want to consult steps 8 to 12 more in-depth.

Looking back at the added value and co-benefits of a scoping study, in step 4, as well as the ToR for the study, you can start with the desk review. This desk review provides the foundation for the in-country data collection by reviewing existing information related to anticipatory action. Ideally, the FbF focal point should support whoever is conducting the study in accessing relevant reports and assessments. Below you find suggestion regarding what to look for in the review phase:

as well as the ToR for the study, you can start with the desk review. This desk review provides the foundation for the in-situ data collection by reviewing existing information related to anticipatory action. Ideally, the anticipatory action focal point should support whoever is conducting the study in accessing relevant reports and assessments. Below you find suggestion regarding what to look for in the review phase:

1. Priority hazards
   • Secondary data and reports on extreme events for all hazard types (both weather as non-weather related hazards), including information on the magnitude of past events, their impacts, whether the events were forecasted, and previous humanitarian responses. Be open to various hazards and do not overlook “hidden” ones such as heatwaves. You can narrow down the list after the desk review.
   • Available risk data on exposure and vulnerability for different hazards. National agencies may have data at high spatial resolution. If not, global databases such as Humanitarian Data Exchange (HDX) , EM-DAT or Desinventar may have relevant data. See toolbox for more info.
   • Information on expected trends as a result of climate change, land-use change, conflict, major infrastructural developments.
   • Review of the skill (the accuracy of the forecast) of global forecasting products for the hazards of interest in the country, and any documentation of the skill of forecasts produced nationally or locally (if available).
2. Operational and institutional capacity building needs
   • Existing reports (e.g. PER, OCAC) on the institutional capacities of the National Society to better understand the National Society’s strengths and needs. The IFRC GO Platform also documents operational learning that might be of interest.
   • The National Society’s strategic documents such as policies, strategic plans and contingency plans.
3. Strategic collaborations with stakeholders
   • Reports or documents on other anticipatory action initiatives begun or established in the country, who they involve, and what they entail.
   • Online search and guidance from National Society regarding institutions (e.g. government or UN agencies, Red Cross Red Crescent Movement partner NGOs, technical working groups) working in the anticipatory action, early warning/hazard forecasting, DRR, preparedness, risk assessment, climate adaptation or early action space within the country, including academic research programs.
4. Potential early actions
   • Existing reports on IFRC-DREF responses to understand strengths and experiences of the National Society.
   • Reports on early actions from stakeholders in-country that show evidence of their effectiveness.
5. Data availability and gaps
   • Initial identification of existing information management platforms (these are increasingly becoming open source and accessible online in recent years).

While you are collecting the different information, please have the following recommended steps in mind. These steps should be accomplished before the primary data collection starts.

• Based on your stakeholder mapping, prepare a draft list of interviewees. Together with the anticipatory action focal point you can start making appointments. Note that this should be a “living” list to which additional contacts can be added to throughout the data collection. In the toolbox, you find a template for the interview list and guidance on how to select those.
• Together with the anticipatory action focal point, ensure that you plan interviews with different departments in the National Society. Please also look at the guidance in the toolbox.
• Be prepared that you will need to present anticipatory action to stakeholders in country. Often not all staff of the National Society, government technical services (e.g. hydrological and meteorological), and other institutions that may be involved in the set-up of the anticipatory action system know what anticipatory action is. Make sure that you bring a presentation that explains the concept and the context of the study as well as brochures and other explanatory material. A more thorough understanding of anticipatory action will help stakeholders to better answer scoping questions so the consultant can determine what is feasible.
• If of interest to the National Society or the steering group, a remote presentation of desk-review results could be organized with the National Society to outline the following:
  • Suggest which hazards to prioritize in the in-country phase. For example, you can narrow down the hazards to only three, based on your initial assessments. Please have a look at the suggested decision matrix in the toolbox.
  • Outline the methodology to be used for the in-country data collection.
  • Present and discuss list of stakeholders and community visit.
  • Discuss any open organizational or content-related matters that need to be addressed before the primary data collection work starts.

The in-situ phase serves to fill information gaps and to answer questions remaining after the desk review. To encourage buy-in from the National Society’s senior management, make sure they are informed about the activities and that the anticipatory action focal point accompanies the data collection.

Methodology

The following phases and methodologies represent the minimum steps toward primary data collection. You may also collect complementary data through surveys or other tools as time and resources permit.

Key informant interviews (KII)

Before meeting stakeholders, make sure that you introduce yourself and the study. You can also ask interviewees to sign a research consent form.

As you will speak to very different stakeholders, interview questions need to be adjusted to each participant based on their area of expertise. You can use the compilation of guiding questions provided in the toolbox as a starting point and narrow them according to your needs. It may not be possible to answer all of these questions in the limited time frame of the study, but they can serve as a guideline to identify open questions and gaps.

Experience from other countries has shown that it is beneficial to begin speaking to data stakeholders and begin working toward data sharing agreements from the early stages, as this can be a lengthy process. Guidance about how to set up a data sharing agreement can be found in the toolbox.

Community visit

A community visit including participatory data collection is another way to understand the disaster impact and resulting needs. Given the likely resource constraints, you will not be able to gather information from all potentially affected communities. Nevertheless, consulting communities can assist you in understanding the realities of intended recipients. Based on the results of the risk assessment, the prioritization of hazards from the desk review, and key determinants of vulnerability and exposure, purposefully select communities in close cooperation with the anticipatory action focal point and the National Society. If there is an ICRC Delegation present in the country, seek the latest security advice ahead of visiting any field locations.

There are many methods for working with communities. Please refer to the eVCA (enhanced Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment) tools in the toolbox for participatory methods. The People-first Impact Method (P-FIM) is another promising approach to shaping your anticipatory action program. Rather than taking the need for anticipatory action as a given or necessity, it builds trust and two-way communication, allowing communities themselves to define their priorities and what should be done, when, and by whom. A longer description of the approach is provided in the MEAL chapter, and links to supporting documents and contacts for training are available in the toolbox.

Stakeholder workshop

If time and budget allows, consider organizing a stakeholder workshop to get feedback on the study results, fill remaining data gaps, and develop recommendations for the anticipatory action set-up. Such workshops are also a good opportunity to generate interest in anticipatory action and build the relationships needed to carry the concept forward.

Please find examples of agendas in the toolbox.

Write up a report containing the elements outlined above. Overall, the study should serve as a road map that recommends concrete next steps and activities. Please find a suggested outline with some templates below in the toolbox.

Some points for consideration:

• The recommendations should be as actionable as possible.
• Ensure that all the requested points from ToR are addressed.

The report could also include a suggested preliminary roadmap based on the findings of the study to provide the National Society with some concrete recommendations for next steps and activities. For this, a red-yellow-green categorization could be used to help prioritize the various actions. See for example the feasibility study for South Sudan in the toolbox.

Based on the data you collect above, we suggest you hold a validation workshop with stakeholders to share and validate the results, obtain their feedback, and plan next steps. The length of the workshop depends on your resources and the materials you wish to cover.

This discussion may be a good place to decide whether there is sufficient information, expertise, and capacity to develop a full EAP or whether a simplified EAP, the use of imminent DREF or community-based approaches might be more appropriate given the forecasts, data, hazard-type or other capacities available at the time.

Based on the data and feedback from the validation workshop, report on the results and circulate the findings back to stakeholders as appropriate.
Ideally, a folder with all the material should be shared which includes

• Interview guides
• Meeting schedule
• Workshop agendas
• Presentations used
• Transcripts (if available)
• Photos
• Criteria / list of interviewees
• …and more!

Once the study is final and the results are validated by stakeholders and National Society management, the National Society must make the following decisions:

• Whether to start working on anticipatory action
• Which approach to choose
• Which hazard to work on
• With whom to partner for your anticipatory action work