Together We Stand

[ 100 ] The availability of most humanitarian funding occurs after disasters, with the consequence of low efficiency and high disaster impacts Actions implemented before a disaster strikes can help to reduce the impacts of disasters and the costs of relief afterwards Source: Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, 2015 Source: Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, 2015 To put it into practice and further develop this concept, in 2014 the German Federal Foreign Office launched its Action Plan for Humanitarian Adaptation to Climate Change. This action plan, coordinated by the German Red Cross, embraces different levels of actors: the humanitarian community, scien- tists, local actors and the policy level. The main partners are the National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in the respective pilot countries, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), the Red Cross/ Red Crescent Climate Centre, the World Food Programme (WFP), the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Welthungerhilfe and the Nansen Initiative. In a multi-stakeholder event taking place twice a year in Geneva, the Dialogue Platform, additional partners such as Oxford University and the University of Reading, as well as other scientists and humanitarian actors, meet to exchange results and lessons learned and to work on the Fbf methodology. The main pillar of the action plan is the devel- opment and testing of Fbf in high-risk pilot countries, under the guidance of the German Red Cross and WFP. Fbf is stimulating a proactive change in traditional humani- tarian response. To enable Fbf, a humanitarian agency and stakeholders like meteorological services and communities at risk agree on selected actions that are worth carrying out once a forecast reaches a certain threshold; each action is allocated a budget to be activated when such a forecast is received. The actions are written into standard operating procedures (SOPs) that establish who will do what when a particular forecast arrives. Part of the SOPs is the scientific threshold based on one or more forecast models and deciding on when the different actors want to act. But because SOPs are just that — standard — disaster managers will not face any blame if the disaster does not mate- rialize. The final result will be an institutional mechanism that improves the effectiveness of humanitarian response. No forecast is 100 per cent secure. Sometimes early actions will be taken but the expected extreme weather event will not occur — so the action will be ‘in vain’. The system will be designed so that more resource-intensive, elaborate or disrup- tive actions — ‘high regret’ actions like evacuations —will only be taken when the probability of the extreme event is high. In case of lower probability, only less elaborate or intensive ‘low regret’ actions, such as refresher trainings, are taken. Some actions, like hand-washing campaigns before a flood, will have lasting effects that are beneficial to the community even if the extreme event does not materialize. Humanitarian assis- tance after disaster strikes is far more costly than investing in medium- to short-term anticipatory actions reducing impact and losses caused by disasters. Different data and studies of insurance companies prove that US$1 invested in preparedness actions before disaster strikes saves US$4-7 for relief actions after the disaster. Hence over time, the negative consequences of not taking early action would be significantly greater than occasionally acting although the extreme event does not occur. A key element of Fbf is that the allocation of resources is agreed in advance, so actors can weigh the risk of occasionally acting ‘in vain’ against consistently failing to take early action. Gathering evidence about the viability of Fbf is at the core of the ongoing pilot projects funded by the German Foreign Federal Office and implemented by the Red Cross Red Crescent and WFP. Countries and regions have different approaches to prepare for disasters, and all can learn from each other. As more experiences from the pilot countries are gathered and scientists make progress in the identification and development of forecast thresholds, Fbf is becoming a reality. In a ground-breaking exercise in November 2015, the Uganda Red Cross, with the support of the German Red Cross and the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, activated a humanitarian action triggered by a scientific forecast of flood risk. Nearly 400 families were given 5,000 non-food items, including jerry cans and water-purification tablets. The project region in Uganda did indeed face flooding; rescue operations and emergency appeals were launched after the event. There was no need, however, to include the communities reached by Red Cross Fbf actions in the national emergency appeal that sought aid for the rest of the region, because the communities were able to prepare for the flooding. Jerry cans, soap and a month’s supply of water purification tablets had already been distributed before the disaster and helped prevent the spread of possible waterborne diseases. Results of the impact meas- urement will be published soon. As often happens, the needs established in the national post-emergency appeal were quite high and the appeal was not fully funded. The Uganda forecast was based on the data of the European Commission’s Global Flood Awareness System and verified by the Uganda National Meteorological Agency, the Uganda Hydrological Department and the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts. “By using forecasts in this innovative project, we are now intervening even earlier, before receiving reports of disasters,” said Secretary General of the Uganda Red Cross Robert Kwesiga. “With such timely disbursement, we hope to avoid catastrophe before it even happens, supporting people to continue working and going to school.” T ogether W e S tand