02. Engage your stakeholders

Summary

This chapter provides guidance on engaging relevant actors—from organizational leadership to potential NGO partners and government institutions—in the development of an FbF system. After reiterating why such engagement is important, this chapter covers messages for capturing stakeholder interest, common methods for fostering engagement, and how to plan and track engagement over time. You will also need to summarize the stakeholders involved in full EAP chapter 2 (Key actors) and describe who has signed off on the full EAP chapter 10 (EAP endorsement and approval). Each national society knows their context best and should tailor these steps accordingly.

Step 1: Understand why engaging stakeholders is important

A National Society is one of many actors in your country’s disaster risk management landscape. Because they are auxiliary to government, it is important that National Societies not develop FbF in isolation or without connection to existing DRM systems. In addition to educating newcomers about anticipatory action, engaging stakeholders is critical to permitting stakeholders to learn from one another and to fostering broader institutionalization and longer-term sustainability. In countries where multiple actors (e.g. NGOs, UN, Red Cross Red Crescent) are designing and implementing anticipatory action systems, coordination can prevent duplication or the development of parallel structures and permit the government to assume an important coordinating role, should they desire one. Engaging key stakeholders from the beginning is also likely to help you with the following down the line:

  • Securing the support of the Hydromet services for trigger development and monitoring
  • Obtaining validation or sign-off from government on the EAP
  • Integrating FbF/AA into government disaster risk management systems and plans (e.g. contingency plans)
  • Obtaining relevant data or information from government institutions
  • Scaling up AA in conjunction with other humanitarian actors in the country (see Bangladesh case study, for example)

Step 2: Understand whom to engage in your context

If your national society conducted a scoping study, the results of this study are a good place to begin, as they likely include a preliminary identification of stakeholders. If your national society conducted a scoping study but over a year has passed, you should revisit and update those results as necessary, as potential stakeholders, data sources,
and forecasts may have changed. You will not have to conduct a comprehensive scoping study, but it may be helpful to revisit chapter 1 to help you determine which elements may need updating and how to do so.

If your national society did not conduct a scoping study or include a stakeholder mapping in the scoping study, begin by mapping relevant stakeholders for your context. The toolbox below contains a variety of links and resources on how to conduct a stakeholder mapping or analysis.

In the video below, Sheikh Khairul Rahaman talks about his experiences in involving stakeholders in FbF projects in Bangladesh.

Stakeholder mapping for the drought EAP in Somalia

During the induction workshop in Hargeisa (2022), the Somali Red Crescent Society (SRCS) did a first mapping of stakeholders who might be influential with varying interest to the development of the drought EAP. In this first mapping SRCS mapped out who to what degree stakeholders are influential to the development of a drought EAP and also what their interest in a drought EAP might be. Crucial are particularly those stakeholders that are very influential but not very interested. Hence, for those a plan need to be developed on how to engage them.

You find a template for the influence/interest matrix here.


Photo credit: GRC

At a minimum, you should engage one or more representatives from the following institutions:

  • National Hydrometeorological services
  • Government agencies or ministries responsible for (or involved in) disaster risk management
  • Government agencies involved in social protection (if your national society intends to provide cash as an early action and/or explore linkages to social protection).
  • Any organizations already working on anticipatory action in your country
    • NOTE: If other non-governmental actors are working on/implementing FbF, it is essential that these organizations coordinate their efforts to engage the government and ensure their key messages align. For an example of such coordination see the case study on how BDRCS and WFP worked together in Bangladesh.
  • Participants in existing technical working groups related to anticipatory action
  • Experts in sector specific or crosscutting concerns, such as agriculture, social affairs, protection gender and inclusion, education, migration, (mental) health etc. as appropriate
  • If you are working in a conflict setting, be sure to engage the ICRC. They will be able to provide guidance on what else to consider and who else to engage in your context to ensure the safety of staff and volunteers.

You may also want to consult with or engage donors, especially as a source of information for relevant programs.

After you have a comprehensive list of stakeholders, you will need to prioritize them and identify their potential role in developing, implementing, enabling or otherwise supporting your RCRC FbF system. The table below outlines a potential format for clearly identifying what stakeholders can bring to the FbF system and how essential their participation is for your success.

 

Table: Sample stakeholder mapping/analysis

From Stakeholder mapping
Stakeholder Stakeholder What are they doing in AA? What do you need from them? / What role could or should they have in the project? How important / influential / essential is their involvement?

Step 3: Build your message(s)

Stakeholders—both within the national society and in the broader DRM system—must believe in the benefits of anticipatory action if they are to be receptive to your invitations to engage in development and implementation and sustain their involvement and support. This section details a variety of approaches or strategies for peaking and sustaining interest in anticipatory action and FbF to be selected and employed as appropriate to your context. These benefits may apply or appeal to national societies as well as external partners/actors. It is important to strike the right balance between generating “excitement” for the new and innovative approach and not creating expectations that FbF cannot meet.


A. Showcase effectiveness/benefits:
One of the easiest ways to convince stakeholders of the value of FbF/AA is by pointing to evidence of its effectiveness. As outlined in a 2022 Policy Brief by the Anticipatory Action Task Force the bullets below, evidence increasingly demonstrates that anticipatory action is an effective and dignified approach to humanitarian action.

Sample Evidence
(as summarized by the Anticipatory Action Task Force):

  • In Mongolia, livestock keepers who received animal care kits from the Mongolian Red Cross and FAO and cash before severe winter cold saw fewer of their animals die.
  • In Bangladesh, multiple activations by different actors (BDRCS, UNOCHA, WFP ) have shown that at-risk communities who received anticipatory cash before floods peaked were more likely to evacuate, more likely to save save livestock, essential agricultural and fishing equipment, and were less likely to borrow money to cope with the aftermath of a flood.
  • The World Bank estimates that upgrading early warning systems to support early action capacity in all developing countries can save an average of 23,000 lives per year and avoid losses worth between USD 300 million and USD 2 billion per year.
  • In Senegal in 2019, the number of households reporting going a whole day without eating was reduced by 19% during a six-month anticipatory project for drought funded by the Start Network.

Aside from the above examples, the evidence for anticipatory action is regularly evolving. The evidence database on the Anticipation Hub is updated as new quantitative studies on the impact of anticipatory action across organizations are published. It can therefore help you to locate and summarize the evidence most relevant to you.

Furthermore, experience from previous FbF programs suggests that FbF programs have a positive impact on national society capacities and systems (e.g. logistics, procurement, and preparedness) leading to faster more proactive operations and improved response overall (for more information, see Tozier de la Poterie et al, 2023).

B. Show concrete examples of how FbF can help

You can enhance the case for FbF by combining general evidence from FbF projects (See A) with anecdotal examples from communities. As the goal of FbF is to prevent and reduce suffering for recipients of early action, who better to speak to the effectiveness of FbF than those who participate? Media stories can also be an effective tool for generating interest. See for example video from Honduras explaining what anticipatory action is and how it helped people before tropical storm Julia in 2022.

Practical Example: Bangladesh
Statement: (Write a simple statement.)

Bangladesh is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world.

Impact: (Give an example of humanitarian impact.)

It’s ranked by the Climate Change Vulnerability Index as the country most at risk globally. This is also a result of its geophysical features. Just under 70% of the country is vulnerable to flooding, and cyclones hit coastal areas almost every year. Evacuation can last up to four weeks, and farmers or daily laborers; receive little to no income during that period. They must often sell assets or take up high interest loans to evacuate, plus pay for food, and health expenses during evacuation and after.

Example: (Use an example or personal story from your own/assisted person’s experience.)

Alefa Katun (40) works as a daily worker in the fields in Bogra. During flood events she loses all income as fields are inundated and cannot be worked on, and her cows can no longer graze.

Action: (Now put your message into action.)

In 2017, the FbF pilot community of Bogra received an SMS alerting those in need of impending cash distribution. They then needed to show up at the various distribution points to receive the support.

According to Alefa, “Thanks to the timely forecasts and EAP activation, we were able to receive cash 3 – 7 days in advance of the flood peak. I am so grateful for the cash. I bought fodder for my cows and could evacuate them. Without the cash, I would have had to sell them, but they are good cows, they deliver good milk and are very healthy.”

Evidence: (Present findings of impact evaluation following the activation)

Studies by GRC, BDRCS and RCCC following the activation found that families who received FbF assistance had to take out less high-interest loans to cover their needs, that they suffered from fewer stress, and had better access to nutrition.

C. Promote FbF as complementary to contingency plans, EWEA and DRR:
Another way to make the case for FbF is to highlight how it can complement and fortify existing Disaster Risk Management frameworks and plans. When FbF is promoted as a “new” or “innovative solution” some government actors may worry that it undermines their existing work in DRR and EWEA. Be clear about where FbF fits in the Disaster Risk Management continuum, and stress that it does not or should not replace DRR. Instead, emphasize that despite existing DRR efforts, there are many communities where DRR has not been implemented, and not all risks can be reduced by long-term prevention and mitigation measures. FbF is therefore a valuable tool for managing residual risk (see figure on the right). Furthermore, FbF can provide access to funding for early actions that is often lacking in existing contingency plans or early warning systems. Therefore, rather than creating parallel systems or replacing existing efforts, FbF can fill gaps in existing structures.


Anticipatory Action within the Disaster Risk Management Continuum
Source: IFRC

Step 4: Engage

A. Request government focal point
If you have not already done so in the scoping (see chapter 1) and/or set-up phase (chapter 3), it may be appropriate to request focal points from the most relevant government agencies. Focal points can serve as liaisons between the national society and key agencies, providing guidance, accountability and ownership in the development of the FbF system and the EAP within their respective organizations. An effective focal point will have the authority and influence to drive change within the partner organization.

B. Establish or join existing support systems
The development of EAPs and set-up of systems for their implementation requires a team of dedicated people with different skill sets. A Technical Working Group (TWG) can be an excellent way to bring people with the necessary skills together to support FbF. If an anticipatory action or relevant TWG for other relevant /related topics exists, check first to see if you can join it rather than creating a new structure.

If no relevant bodies exist, consider creating an anticipatory action TWG. The TWG should be recognized by the government and have a mandate to review, guide, and validate anticipatory action processes. Ideally, at least one representative of the National Disaster Management Agency should participate, but this is not mandatory (e.g. Bangladesh). Other members should include representatives of relevant government ministries, humanitarian organizations, and academia. Refer to your stakeholder mapping when deciding whom to invite. Consistent collaboration among TWG stakeholders can give legitimacy to anticipatory action systems, facilitate alignment of systems across organizations, and contribute to cross-organizational learning and scale up over the long-term.

Please find examples of ToRs for TWG groups below:

C. Exchange visits
There are already many countries implementing FbF for a range of hazards and contexts. Exploratory missions to consult with anticipatory action stakeholders in countries with established FbF systems—FbF “site visits”– can be an excellent way to foster relationships, learn from experience, and consider how to adapt existing FbF approaches to your context. Even after your program is more established, exchange with practitioners within and/or across regions can aid your National Society throughout all stages of FbF implementation.

D. Dialogue Platforms & Workshops

FbF Stakeholders have been hosting Global, Regional and National Dialogue Platforms since 2014.

These Platforms have been instrumental in sparking interest and awareness for FbF. Among other things, these platforms bring stakeholders together (e.g. government agencies, scientists, UN agencies, NGOs and Red Cross Red Crescent Networks active or interested in FbF and EWEA) to exchange ideas and lessons learned, increase their technical understanding of anticipatory action, explore concrete examples and/or outline next steps for anticipatory action in their regions.

Whether to attend a Global, Regional, or Local Dialogue Platform will depend upon your resources and objectives. Attendance is limited for the Global Dialogue Platforms, but they can be an excellent way to introduce high-level officials to the topic if there has been little previous anticipatory action work in your country or region. Speak to your IFRC Country and/or Regional Office if you wish to extend an invitation to key stakeholders in your country. Regional Dialogue Platforms are an excellent way for stakeholder to engage with counterparts from neighboring countries and can foster regional solutions and problem-solving. Seeing how other governments already engage with anticipatory action/FbF can provide inspiration and increase interest and confidence in the feasibility of FbF programs.

Local/National Dialogue Platforms are more common once there is a critical mass of interest and experience with AA in your country. For example, after several years of working jointly on FbF/anticipatory action, the Bangladesh Red Crescent, the WFP country office, and the government of Bangladesh organized a National Dialogue Platform to bring actors together to learn from each other and discuss National Strategies for advancing anticipatory action in Bangladesh.

National-level workshops are also an excellent way to foster collaboration. In Vietnam, for example, the Vietnam Red Cross launch workshop brought together a broad coalition of stakeholders including representatives from the Vietnamese government, United Nations agencies, international and non- governmental organizations and sister Red Cross Societies.

E. Involve stakeholders in EAP development
The degree to which external stakeholders can participate in EAP development will depend on the time and resources they can commit. Ideally, key government and humanitarian stakeholders should be involved in every stage of the Early Action Protocol (EAP) development. Developing relationships with the following agencies is particularly critical: National Disaster Risk Management authorities and technical or scientific agencies such as Hydrometeorological services and/or research institutions. Engaging government in the development of the EAPs helps with data sharing, coordination, transparency and long-term planning. Such engagement can be achieved through regular bilateral meetings or through technical working groups. The potential for buy-in, integration with existing systems, and sign-off on the protocols will be much greater if you involve key stakeholders from the beginning rather than asking for sign-off once the EAP is complete.

In some contexts, it will be possible for the National Society and government officials to co-produce all or parts of the EAP. This might entail jointly setting the triggers with disaster management officials and forecasting agencies, selecting early actions with disaster management officials, and/or allocating funds and selecting recipients in collaboration with local governments or UN agencies.

In countries where anticipatory action/FbF are not yet a priority, National Societies should invite stakeholders to participate and aim to increase their interest and engagement over time. Regardless of the level of interest from potential partners, it is important to involve government stakeholders as much as possible. Results and learnings from simulations, drills, and most importantly activations, should be shared with all the stakeholders engaged in FbF collaboration for more effective joint impact.

F. Work with hydrometeorological agencies to develop triggers
In most cases, strong involvement of a NHMS counterpart is essential to ensure the long-term sustainability of FbF trigger. Where possible, ask NHMS to provide data, assist with analyses, and develop triggers rather than bringing in external consultants. This collaboration will strengthen intra-national collaborations and capacities to maintain the system in the long run. In an ideal scenario, Hydromet services will “own” the trigger, integrating it into their own forecast monitoring systems and alerting your national society and other actors when the trigger is reached. For more on how to engage Hydromet services, see these guidelines.

G. Work with universities on studies / research
Working with National Universities on risk analysis and/or the identification of early actions can build or strengthen interdisciplinary alliances while developing in-country knowledge and expertise for FbF that can be useful for future research, monitoring and evaluation, or other collaborations.

 

Lesotho: joining forces with the university

The drought EAP of the Lesotho Red Cross was backed up by scientific research conducted by the University. For example, Lesotho University conducted a study which investigated the links between cash-based shock-responsive social protection and anticipatory actions for drought in Lesotho.

Later, Lesotho University joined the Academic Alliance for Anticipatory Action (4As), a global consortium of universities that sought to increase the evidence base for anticipatory action. The consortium collaborated with humanitarian agencies that are implementing anticipatory action, including the Red Cross, WFP, OCHA, and START Network.


Photo credit: Lesotho Red Cross

H. Build on existing products/programs
Wherever possible, it is preferable to build on existing forecasting products, early warning systems, or DRM programs. These should be identified during your scoping study or stakeholder analysis. The examples below demonstrate how building on existing products or systems can strengthen FbF in the long-run.

Mongolia: utilizing the government impact-based forecasting product for dzud
As a result of the feasibility study in Mongolia, it was decided that the government-led Impact based forecasting product (dzud map), developed by the Mongolia Met Service and Nagoya University of Japan, was adequate to trigger early action for dzud. By engaging the Government agencies from the beginning of the FbF set-up process, the FbF system of Mongolia Red Cross is one of the most sustainable cases for FbF, given the fact that their trigger system is the basis of early actions of different humanitarian actors in-country.


Photo credit: IFRC

Bangladesh: Tapping into preparedness programs
The Bangladesh Cyclone Preparedness Programme (CPP) is a joint Government and Bangladesh Red Crescent Society (BDRCS) program that provides a robust early warning system and evacuation facilities for the coastal population. The Cyclone EAP was built upon existing CPP capacities, and early actions for cash-based assistance and livestock evacuations were jointly developed through discussions with BDRCS, RCCC, and the Department of Disaster Management (DDM).


Photo credit: BDRCS

H. Include stakeholders in simulations/drills
Including government authorities in simulations and drills is crucial to jointly testing the effectiveness of plans, protocols, guidelines, and the capacity of those responsible for carrying out early actions.

Please see two examples below.

Vietnam: Fostering support after doing
Heatwaves are not a new phenomenon in Vietnam; however, not much is known about their impact and anticipatory action to prevent this impact did not yet exist. The government of Vietnam was initially supportive but not convinced of the effectiveness of early action. Testing FbF early actions in response to two heatwaves in July and August of 2019, allowed the government to see the impact of early actions firsthand. Cooling centres and cooling vans, offering first-aid, water and resting opportunities served over 3,000 visitors.


Photo credit: GRC

Peru and Ecuador: Strengthening collaboration through doing
In Peru and Ecuador, simulations and drills were integral to ensuring the National Hydromet Services (NHMS) and DRM agencies understood how FbF could support their DRM work and how they could support national society FbF. The drills showed governments concrete examples of actions that can be taken before extreme events to reduce losses. They also tested that all agencies involved in the EAP activation knew their roles and responsibilities for each point in time during the activation.

Step 5: Monitor & track your engagement

Once you have completed the above steps, it may be worthwhile to develop a plan for engaging key stakeholders. For example, you could use the table below to combine the key stakeholders from your stakeholder mapping with the engagement strategies above to plan and monitor your key actor engagement.

Table: Planning and Monitoring Stakeholder engagement

From Stakeholder mapping Advocacy plan
Stakeholder What are they doing in AA? What do you need from them? / Role in the project? How important / influential Key contacts (point people) Engagement strategies (list from step 4) Status of engagement/engagement tracking

What can go wrong in stakeholder engagement?

Despite our best efforts and intentions, stakeholder engagement does not always go as planned or as desired. Here are some challenges other national societies have encountered when trying to engage stakeholders in FbF as well as some initial thoughts on what they might do differently next time. Contact Karen Dall or Arielle Tozier de la Poterie to share your experiences—positive and negative—and to discuss how you might overcome these challenges in the future.

A. Stakeholders do not understand FbF
As anticipatory action is a relatively new topic, it often takes time for DRM practitioners to understand the concept. It is therefore essential to prioritize education and outreach from the early stages of FbF planning. In addition to workshops and dialogue platforms, regular meetings or forums (such as technical working groups) can be used to reiterate the basic principles and serve as a platform for people to engage more regularly with the topic.They may also help to address problems of staff turnover by inviting new staff or partners to learn and ask questions

B. Obtaining commitment/engagement from key stakeholders
In some countries, National Societies have found it difficult to get responses or consistent engagement from key ministries or partner organizations. Consider the following strategies:

  • Involve the Secretary General or National Society leadership: Some national societies have had more success reaching out to government partners and solidifying partnerships when the invitations come from national society leadership. Invitations from leadership demonstrate a commitment beyond the scope of a single project and are essential to developing MoUs.
  • Let the government lead outreach/invitations: Forming a technical working group and/or letting National Disaster Risk Management Agencies take the lead on outreach may raise the profile of these meetings and encourage other agencies to dedicate time and resources.

C. Sustaining engagement considering competing priorities
Even if government, UN, and NGO stakeholders are enthusiastic about FbF, they may not have the time in their busy schedules to engage regularly in FbF. Other national societies have overcome these challenges in the following ways:

  • MoUs/high-level buy-in: Involve high-level officials in the process and securing their interest, commitment, and buy-in is essential to securing commitment from technicians and agency staff. Stakeholders must see engagement in AA as something relevant and important to their job descriptions rather than another meeting being added to their to do list. It may take time for relevant officials to understand the concept and value of FbF; therefore; you may need to focus on education and outreach for some time. Once high-level interest is secured, it may be appropriate to designate a focal point (or focal team) and/or consider an MoU to formalize the cooperation.
  • Redundancy: Involve several people or a team of focal points from key agencies. When communications and invitations are extended to several people within relevant ministries, it is less likely that no one will be available to attend key meetings or provide necessary feedback. However, this strategy must be weighed against the possibility of diluting responsibility for engaging with FbF such that no one attends because they think it is someone else’s responsibility. This strategy therefore works best if there is a formal team within each organization and each member understands and agrees to work together to provide feedback to the national society, attend meetings, and update each other.
  • Flexibility: Be flexible in your strategies and adapt your engagement strategies as necessary. If large group meetings are not working, follow-up with bilateral meetings. If a piecemeal approach to engagement is causing problems, consider setting up formal structures such as working groups. Monitoring your outreach and the involvement of key stakeholders (using Table 2.2 as a baseline, for example) is essential to identifying challenges in involving key stakeholders and adjusting strategies accordingly.

D. Living up to expectations

  • In countries where other organizations or agencies are already working on anticipatory action, some national societies have had difficulty engaging government stakeholders, as they do not have the financial resources to support staff time or capacity strengthening. In such cases, it may be beneficial to partner more closely with organizations that have established programs or dedicated resources and/or build upon their models and programs. It will also be important to manage expectations and explain why and how the Red Cross Red Crescent model differs from the kind of support other partners are able to provide.

Toolbox

Evidence

Case studies

Tools and templates

Other key reads, documents and websites