Basics of Emergency Preparedness in Humanitarian Settings

Why Emergency Preparedness 

Emergency preparedness provides humanitarian organizations with a framework to systematically analyze and monitor risks, take early actions to enhance preparedness, and flag gaps in capacity at the regional and global levels so that adequate support can be mobilized on time to respond to new or escalating humanitarian needs and protection of affected populations.

The current practices for emergency preparedness in the sector are based on the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Emergency Response Preparedness (ERP) Framework adopted in 2015 to ensure readiness to respond to potential crises in a coordinated manner to increase the timeliness, predictability and effectiveness of humanitarian aid after the onset of a crisis. 

Emergency preparedness includes three key elements: 

I. Risk Assessments 

Conducting a regular risk assessment is a core activity of any successful organisation and is more critical for humanitarian actors that regularly operate in high-risk and complex settings.  For emergency preparedness purposes, this activity should be integrated into the organizational larger risk framework and process. Preferably done in line with strategic and annual planning cycles and reviews to ensure sufficient resources and capabilities are allocated for success. 

Humanitarian organisations face several risks that could be categorized into three generic categories: 

1. Strategic risks: These include risks that could impact the organization's capacity to deliver its mandate and objectives.  This could include issues around program alignment with the external environment and partnerships (e.g., critical donors' funding and authorities' consent for operations), key reputational risks (e.g.,mis/disinformation campaigns) and also the major external contextual risks including those that could promote the activation of a new emergency response (armed conflict, insecurity, disasters, public health risks). 
2. Operational risks: focus on the operating environment and the internal capacity to deliver quality and effective programmes, including risks to beneficiaries (e.g., quality, accountability, protection), partners, and to staff and organizational activities and assets.  It could also include risks to decision-making and business processes and financial risks (price, fluidity, etc.). 
3. Fiduciary risks:  Those are the risks that are resulting in undermining internal policies and standards and wider sectoral principles/ethical commitments.  This could include breaching international or local laws, partnership agreements, aid diversion, and fraud and corruption risks. 

The risk assessment process usually involves:

1. Analyzing the context to understand the potential threats that could pose risks to the organization; 
2. Analyzing the internal capacity, and understanding the specific strengths and weaknesses in the specific intervention area;  
3. Measuring the risk level by estimating the likelihood (probability) of the occurrence of the threat and the impact (consequences) of the occurrence on the organization. (Risk Level= Likelihood x Impact); 
4. Prioritizing the risks based on the risk level to the organization; 
5. Identifying the prevention and mitigation measures that could be put in place to reduce the likelihood or impact of the risk; 
6. Measuring the residual risk and decisions/options that could include: accepting the risk by balancing the remaining risks vs. the intervention impact/criticality, controlling the risk through further capacities or mitigation measures, avoiding the risk like suspending or cancelling specific activities, or transferring the risk to a third party with better capacity or lower risk level. All of which are not free from further consequences and ethical considerations. 

Other considerations when doing risk assessments include: 

• Developing risk monitoring indicators:  While risk assessments are a regular exercise conducted by all humanitarian organizations, developing indicators for how and when a situation is likely to deteriorate and actively monitoring those are not regular practices.   
• Empowering risk managers:  Assigning a risk owner for each key medium-high risk is good practice. Still, also management needs to ensure that the designated staff member is equipped with the necessary resources and also is politically supported to be able to manage it effectively.  Managing many organizational risks could clash with other priorities of its different units and frequently include the need to challenge/reverse previous actions or change current common practices that staff are accustomed to.
• Risk escalation: Management should critically review available resources and internal capacity to manage the risk and identify clear decision gates and pathways for when and how risks should be escalated up the organizational chain and when external assistance is needed. 

II. Minimum Preparedness Actions 

Minimum Preparedness Actions (MPAs) are a set of activities that the management and technical teams responsible for the operational area (a region, a country, or an area/field office) should review and implement to build the minimum level of emergency preparedness within their areas of responsibility. This will provide the response with a backbone that could be reinforced and built on when a new crisis or disaster happens. 

MPAs are usually not risk or scenario-specific. They should be implemented as needed in all countries/areas where there is a mandate to provide humanitarian response regardless of the current risk levels as it also helps to absorb first shocks in unexpected emergencies.  

MPAs provide a practical exercise to review the existing capacities and gaps in the country/area and help to identify early the additional resources required to improve your office's preparedness for emergencies.  They should be implemented and reviewed every 6-12 months. And you should be careful not to make it a plain tick-the-box exercise but an opportunity for true internal reflection and action. 

Examples of MPAs include but are not limited to:

• Having an updated risk register in place. 
• Identifying/assigning the members of the crisis/emergency management team to be activated when risk is escalated/materialized.
• Identifying/assigning focal persons in different geographical areas to coordinate the review and implementation process. 
• Identifying/assigning focal persons in different units/thematic areas of the office to take the actions forward. 
• Developing a business continuity plan to ensure operational priorities are met when the office itself is impacted by a new crisis or disaster. 
• Having an up-to-date contact list with established communication of key stakeholders in a country relevant for emergency/crisis/disaster management including state (disaster committees, military, police, health, etc.) and non-state actors and the humanitarian community.
• Conducting baseline assessments for the existing needs and vulnerabilities in collaboration with community groups and local organisations.  
• Providing basic technical guidance and core programmatic capacity in areas relevant to the organization's mandate and mission. 
• Updating staff lists, key contacts and emergency contacts. This also includes residence permits and visa status for key international staff. 
• Having regular stock updates for key operational and humanitarian items in the areas of operation, those in the pipeline and possible gaps. 
• Exploring several options for the supply chain including alternative warehousing, entry points and transportation options. 
• Having active rosters for human resources, and vetted local suppliers and partners lists in place. 
• Establishing emergency cash management procedures like cash in hand and alternative financial service providers. 
• Implementing training activities/refreshers and emergency drills for country and field teams to ensure they are familiar with the emergency activation procedures, the basic principles and standards of humanitarian response, rapid assessments, technical interventions, and operational procedures (safety and security, emergency procurement, etc.).  

III. Advanced Preparedness Actions 

Advanced Preparedness Actions (APAs) are the activities that the management and technical teams responsible for the operational area (a region, a country, or an area/field office) implement in response to a specific moderate/escalating or a high risk. They are designed to move from ‘preparedness’ to ‘readiness’ to initiate or scale up the humanitarian response.

Examples of APAs include but are not limited to: 

• Identifying the priority emergency procedures and key actions that need to be taken in the early days of the response and assigning focal persons to these actions. Basically to avoid running around like headless chickens in the critical first 24-72 hours of the potential crisis/response.  This could include:  ensuring staff safety and security, activating the crisis/emergency management group, delegating management of core functions and ongoing programs where necessary,  activating the business continuity plan, active information sharing with external and internal stakeholders, and initiating assessments and macro scenarios for a possible response. 
• Sometimes with manageable risks and sufficient office capacity, the focus will be on scaling up some of the MPAs to improve readiness for the response. 
• Depending on the size, complexity and impact of the escalating risk, It sometimes requires a dedicated team and a separate contingency/response plan with new objectives, activities, and resources required to start a new humanitarian operation. The new plan will focus on the emerging or escalating needs among the host or displaced communities as a result of the crisis/disaster. For more information, go to my previous article on how to write a contingency plan. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/writing-humanitarian-contingency-plan-salar-khudadad 
• Deploying rapid operational and technical teams to help with developing assessments, scenarios for response and response activities set-up/scale-up. 
• Developing external reports and proposals to ensure timely and sustainable funding and resources for the response. 

Weaknesses in the system 

While the IASC framework was the basis for improved emergency preparedness capacities and practices across the sector in the last few years, with implementation, we have also found several challenges that might require us to go back to the sketch board.  Here is a summary of some of the more critical elements, in my opinion: 

1. Cross-sectoral coordination: 

Humanitarians are now operating in an era of poly and complex crises where increased and fragmented local conflict and insecurity, disasters, and public health emergencies regularly occur at the same time. Humanitarian response is no longer a short-term activity and now prolongs with the protracted displacement and refugee situations for many years.    

This entails that different actors could be operating using different methods within their different mandates, capacities and response plans.  For example, for internally displaced populations, UNOCHA will lead the activation of the cluster system and the development of a humanitarian response plan/appeal.  When affected populations cross the borders, UNHCR will also take the lead and put in place country or regional refugee response plans and sectoral meetings.  Other agencies could work in a region/country to respond to other priorities like droughts and floods using disaster risk management methods, while international health emergency standards would apply if a public health issue is identified.  

We need to make more efforts to ensure that all these sectors understand each other's ways of working and frameworks and start bridging these technical overlaps and gaps in both coordination but also field preparedness and capacity development activities for communities prone to complex and recurring risks. 

2. Participation of local actors: 

Soon as a crisis happens large humanitarian organizations could mobilize their massive resources and flex their operational muscles in ways that undermine the existing local mechanisms including local authorities and local non-profit and civil society organizations.  Promoting joint leadership and coordination when analyzing risks or developing preparedness activities could minimize this problem when real events happen.  

3. Accountability to the affected population: 

While it is something that we talk about a lot, practically we do not empower community participation in emergency preparedness and response activities. Bureaucratic access impediments, insecurity, and resource mobilization could sometimes be true challenges. Historic perceptions and trust issues could add a layer of complexity. Nevertheless, this should not be an excuse.  

When it comes to emergency preparedness, the regular risk assessment and planning of minimum preparedness actions could provide ample time and present the best opportunity to develop these activities and promote community participation early in the process to ensure our accountability.  Involving communities in the preparedness process is essential for ensuring their ownership, resilience, and effective response during emergencies.

4. Early Warning :  

The majority of our humanitarian preparedness frameworks and practices lack sufficient planning and capacity for effective early warning systems that work on improving data collection and analysis, enhancing communication and dissemination mechanisms, fostering community engagement and preparedness, and strengthening the integration between early warning systems and emergency response mechanisms. It is an area that also requires improved cross-sectoral coordination, robust partnerships with state actors, community groups, and the private sector, in addition to sustained funding.  

A lot of sector efforts are also focused now on advancing anticipatory action frameworks, which is maybe a topic for future articles. 

For Self-reflection:

• What are some of the best practices you have experienced in designing and planning adequate emergency preparedness activities in humanitarian settings? 
• How could we improve our accountability to the affected populations and the participation of local actors in our emergency preparedness activities?