Application of Seasonal Climatic Forecasting for Pre-emptive Humanitarian Response

Clare Harris – HelpAge InternationalEnvironmental Risk Advisor (DRR, Climate Change and Resilience)Msc Geophysical Hazards

Aim: Explore the application of seasonal forecasts to the humanitarian sector for pre-emptive response, with a focus on engaging the wider NGO community

Objective 1: Identify some of the key questions that need to be considered within a potential decision making framework

Objective 2: Explore the operational barriers in applying seasonal forecasts in the humanitarian sector, but also what the solutions to this may be.

Objective 3: In discussion suggest an operational mechanism that may facilitate humanitarian agencies including the wider NGO community to successfully respond to seasonal climatic forecasts through pre-emptive action

Focus groups and Interviews with operational staff across 7 Humanitarian NGO’s2 Climate Scientists, 2 Intermediary staff, 2 Humanitarian Experts

Seasonal forecast depicting the potential hazard scenarios

RCOF

Potential Impact scenariosWhat impacts do you care about, health?, agriculture?, food security?, water infrastructure??

What are the starting conditions?What are the implications of the forecast on those starting conditions

Most-likely rainfall anomalies based on Forecast Interpretation Tool analysis of the ICPACGHACOF30 Consensus forecast for March-May 2012

October-December 2011 Rainfall asa percentage of normal (%) Vegetation Index February 20-29,

2012 compared to the previous year

household food access

Crop rainfall tolerances

crop and market prices

Food stocks available

Lots of analytical data needed in local detail across many thematic area of impact and accurate impact modelling – lots more uncertainty and error creeping in

Food access – conflict

Multi hazard environment – Climate and weather is just one factor

Earthquakes

HIV

Volcanic eruptions

Fuel and food prices

ConflictLandslides

Water pollution

Pests

Disease

displacementCorruption

Lack of sanitation

Land degradationTsunami

Violence and abuse

if and how to respond

If to respond? - External situation

• What’s the potential type and size of the impact and severity,

• what’s the uncertainty?

• Where do we get the information from?

• What are other agencies and governments are doing?

• What’s the existing in country governmental capacity?

Japan

Humanitarian decision making

Internal situation- What funding is available, or could be available in the long term?

- Are we already present?

- Do we have capacity in country?

- Do our partners have capacity?

- Do we have human resource capacity?

- What is the security situation and can we manage it?

- Is there media attention and what’s the implication on our media and public image?

- Do we have political access and what is the political risk to existing programmes?

- What impact would there be diverting resources from exiting programmes?

- Is it within our strategic priorities?

- Is the impact in our strategic thematic area of work

- Who is responsible for deciding to respond?

How to respond?- What is the potential impact and need identified, where are we (help to adapt, pre-

planting ---- need for therapeutic feeding to start?? ?

- Where do we get the data from?

- Is the data credible?

- What’s the resolution of the data

- What’s the need in our specific thematic area or priority group?

- Does it fall within our strategic priority work and skills and experiences?

- What are the skills capacity and priority of the partner?

- What are the gaps ?

- What’s funding is available ?

- What is the appropriate kind of action for this level of certainty, where is the threshold ?

- What’s the plan if the certainty and impact analysis changes?

Barriers

Lack of funding for analysis and pre-emptive action

Skill understanding and communication of seasonal

forecasting

complexity and noise of forecasts, analysis – too many

actors and sources of information

Analytical and operational capacity - The lack of time and money available within the organisation to divert resources to something that might not happen and accountability for this when there is so much need in other areas

Ability and willingness to manage uncertainty – the need to see impact

Risk to the organisational image and resource base in responding to something Uncertain – potential to be wrong and loose credibility with the public, institutional donor's, communities and other agencies

Organisational culture• “risk adverse” due to

Precarious funding base• Lack of capacity to learn• Humanitarian/development

divide – DRR and pre-emptive action sits in no mans land

Pre-

empti

ve A

ction

Seasonal Forecast EW

Donor interest and funding mechanisms linked to forecasts and pre-emptive actions

Reduce the noise and create a decision making path,

Contingency planning and thresholds for actions (Corridor in for seasonal climatic information)

Increased partnership for potential impact consensus building and stronger role of intermediaries

they all point to the need for accountability in the use of uncertain seasonal forecast

information for organisational action. It may be acceptable to be wrong and to have a false

alarm, if there is a defensible decision making process for the NGO – everyone

reading off the same page and working in partnership

- this probably applies to all science and information subject to uncertainty

Needs and solutions identified

“National Impact Outlook Forum” (NIOF)

Proposed mechanism from the research

Replicate the consensus building idea of the RCOF, but at a national scale to bring together NGOs, farmers groups, intermediaries, NMHCs and governmental

preparedness departments with a UN overview, to build a consensus both on the national scale forecast, and the likely impacts within key thematic areas related to

humanitarian work.

-create specific levels of alert within each thematic area down to the district level which agencies can use to create their own thresholds for action

-relate the alert levels to analogous years, or scenarios (paint a picture)

• Puts NMHCs in a central responsible position, partnering with disaster management units, potentially increasing the impetus for their investment and capacity building

• Information on vulnerability in different thematic areas can be collected throughout the year, then overlaying the seasonal forecast for alert

• At a national level NMHCs could work to include community indictors for the season in consensus building, increasing buy in from communities (recent examples with Kenya Met)

• Reduces the noise right down to a singular credible mechanism at a national level that intermediaries, researchers, NGOs the private sector and other parties can engage with and work to improve

• Consensus building on impact can utilise both computer based modelling innovation but also more discussionary community based techniques for wider engagement

• Allows for NGOs to contribute data as well as be involved in the consensus building on the likely impact

• The NIOF reports can be tailored to different end users, techniques for the best communication and presentation techniques in this respect can be developed within the NOIF processes.

• Builds national capacity in disaster management and forecasting

• Provide a coordinated hub of learning

• Like any modelling, the NIOF would not be perfect immediately and would need time to improve, with continued support of the RCOF, but centralised engagement in this way is likely to ensure this happens as quickly as possible, as the seasonal forecasting improves so would the NIOF

• NIOF could act as a hub for looking at longer term climate change impacts as well.