While the scoping study can guide on what hazards would be viable for anticipatory action in the given context and what relevant capacities the National Society already has, the National Society needs to decide how to internally prepare your National Society to work in ways that enable early action ahead of predictable shocks. This involves clarifying priorities and roles, or planning how anticipatory action can best be integrated into existing strategies, programmes, or partnerships.
In many cases, this process will lay the institutional foundation for the development of one or more EAPs or simplified EAPs; in other contexts, however, anticipatory action may initially be implemented through community-based disaster reduction initiatives, through the activation of an imminent DREF, or by supporting governments in their work on anticipatory action. Chapters 1 and 2 provide guidance on how to familiarize yourself with different approaches and how to identify suitable entry points. Regardless of the chosen approach, when developing a plan to prepare your National Society to engage in AA, it is important to determine timelines for the chosen approach, which concrete operational entry points exist, what capacities are needed to leverage these entry points, and who within the National Society should be involved in working on the chosen approach.
When implementing anticipatory action through community-based disaster risk reduction initiatives has been identified as a suitable entry point, for example, the planning process might involve mapping relevant projects, tools and structures, such as enhanced Vulnerability and Capacity Assessments (eVCAs), community contingency plans, branch activities, and volunteer networks, and determining which teams should be involved in exploring these opportunities further. When the National Society seeks to explore the imminent DREF more closely as an entry point to anticipatory action, the focus may be on identifying how existing preparedness and response mechanisms could support earlier action in the future, e.g. by reviewing past operations to understand where early action could potentially complement existing response practices. Finally, planning for supporting governments in their work on anticipatory action might involve mapping relevant government counterparts and reviewing existing coordination mechanisms. In any case, the plan should outline which teams, staff, and external stakeholders would need to be involved and how they can be familiarized with the relevant concepts and mechanisms of anticipatory action.
If the National Society opts for a more formalized approach, i.e. an Early Action Protocol, a few extra considerations arise, for example, how many EAPs or simplified EAPs do they want to develop in what timeframe, which type of EAP to go for (simplified or full EAP) and whether a dedicated project is available to support the process. In many cases, such a dedicated anticipatory action project, including a proposal and logframe, can help to plan the process and to fund the process of s/EAP development. This is particularly relevant for s/EAP development as experiences from the past years have shown that it can take between 18 and 24 months for a National Society to develop a full EAP and be activation ready. However, Kazakhstan Red Crescent and Ghana Red Cross are good examples of how to develop a simplified EAP in a short time and without a full-fledged project.