Together We Stand

[ 101 ] In another example, the Red Cross in Peru has implemented Fbf actions in the context of the El Niño phenomenon of 2015/16 that has seriously threatened the lives and well-being of many people around the world. The project in Peru was a good scenario to demonstrate the potential of Fbf to avoid the same suffering that thousands of Peruvians faced during the El Niño event of 1997/98. The Red Cross, community members, government agencies and other humanitarian actors jointly identified actions that would help reduce the negative effects of El Niño based on the regions’ experience with flooding and heavy rain during past El Niño events. The Peruvian Red Cross then mapped out a comprehensive programme of Fbf interventions that included early warnings, first aid, health, water and sanitation, and shelter in flood-prone communities. As seasonal and short-term forecasts reached the identified thresholds in early 2016, this triggered the disbursement of funds for different humanitarian prepar- edness actions. For example, given that many houses were damaged or destroyed by strong rains or flash floods in past El Niño events, 200 houses were stabilized; to reduce the likelihood of an increase in vector-borne and other diseases that had been witnessed in the past, fumigation against mosquitos was carried out and hygiene kits were distrib- uted; measures were also taken to ensure drinking water supply during flooding. Less cost-intensive measures like training of volunteers and community organizations and household awareness-raising measures had already been triggered by relatively low-probability seasonal forecasts in November 2015. In February 2016, when heavy rain and flash floods, some attributed to El Niño, swept across many regions, the Fbf communities were prepared. Local press reports said that in some areas the rains were comparable to the 1997/98 peak. In Mozambique, Fbf has been developed through an extensive dialogue process among the communities at risk, the Mozambique Red Cross, government and non- governmental organizations. The consultative process has enabled a good understanding of the danger levels and the actions that could be triggered based on a cyclone forecast. Determining the level of risk is the first major challenge of the Fbf mechanism, as it requires participatory approaches at all levels. In Mozambique, forecast triggers are scientifically elaborated with the Climate Centre, the National Institute for Meteorology and the National Water Directory. Then selected thresholds are agreed upon with the implementing actors. In Bangladesh, in-depth risk assessments and dialogue with stakeholders have suggested cash transfer programmes based on a forecast would be ideal for Fbf. Cash is more typically used in social protection programmes and in disaster response, recovery and rehabilitation. More is needed to understand the implications of cash transfers arriving just before a disaster. The window of opportu- nity offered by linking pre-existing social protection and safety nets with Fbf actions to protect development gains could ensure that resilience is achieved even in the face of extreme weather events. WFP, meanwhile, in its own version of Fbf, has also released funds in Guatemala and Zimbabwe through the Food Security Climate Resilience Facility in areas where drought risk was forecast to be great due to El Niño in 2015/16. Biannual dialogue platforms on Fbf have been held at the Geneva offices of the IFRC to promote understanding and expansion of the concept. Fbf has also been on the agenda in high-level discussions on humanitarian affairs at the (European) Council Working Party on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid in Brussels. There is also the potential to integrate Fbf with existing humanitarian mechanisms and intensify cooperation with scientists. Fbf allows humanitarian agencies, governments and communities to scale up preparedness when science indi- cates the risk is elevated, and implement early actions months, weeks and days before a potential disaster. The crucial difference and the advantage of Fbf, compared to conventional disaster preparedness, is that its funding is ensured, based on advance agreement between donors and humanitarian actors that if a certain threshold is reached, funding for predefined actions is released. Fbf also builds on existing disaster risk reduction strategies. Analysis of governmental, institutional and local contingency plans is the first step. Actions are decided by local practitioners based on existing risk management knowledge and experience combined with information provided by climate scientists. By building on current humanitarian financial mechanisms, Fbf can allow more efficient use of aid and timely action to reduce suffering. The German government, in partnership with the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and WFP, now hopes for the greatest humanitarian impact by consolidating the best knowledge on climate science, disaster risk reduction and preparedness. Reinforcement of houses as an early action of the medium-probability threshold for extreme rainfall due to El-Niño in Peru Image: Peruvian Red Cross, 2016 T ogether W e S tand