For anticipatory action to be effective, early warning systems need to provide communities, governments and humanitarian agencies with the right information, and in time for them to act. To do so, they must capture and address the complexity – the multiple and interacting nature of hazards and risks – that many communities face. This blog highlights some of the realities of implementing people-centred, multi-hazard early warning systems (MHEWSs) to support anticipatory action, drawing lessons from Practical Action’s work in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru.
The need for early warning systems that account for multi-hazard complexity
Most early warning systems are designed for single hazards, yet communities at risk rarely face hazards one by one; floods can quickly follow a drought, or heat waves can hit during a flood. Multi-hazards can interact in several ways (see Figure 1):
- triggering: one hazard sets off another
- amplification: one hazard changes the likelihood or severity of another
- compound: the impacts of different hazards coincide in time and space
- consecutive: back-to-back events, with subsequent hazards occurring before recovery from the first is complete.
Multi-risk is the real world, so early warnings and anticipatory actions need to recognize this. Yet while some countries claim to have MHEWSs, in reality these often focus on multiple occurrences of a single hazard, not different, interacting hazards. In fact, despite a global push, there are few examples of operational MHEWSs in humanitarian settings (Budimir et al. 2025).
This is significant, as systems that focus on single hazards can lead to fragmented actions, confusing warning messages or contradictory advice, inefficient use of resources, and missed opportunities to address interconnected risks.
There has been progress in developing anticipatory actions for multiple hazards, but to be truly effective in such contexts, the early warning systems on which the actions are based need to consider hazards’ interrelationships, and the dynamics of vulnerability, exposure and impact (de Ruiter and van Loon 2022).
Work towards such systems will vary depending on local conditions and capacities: some places might have a single-hazard early warning systems in place, while others might have more advanced, multiple-hazard systems. While acknowledging this, we suggest five entry points for working towards MHEWSs that support anticipatory action effectively.
1. Identify hazard-specific risks and context-specific risk interrelationships
Inclusive, participatory research with communities is critical for identifying which hazards are covered by existing early warning systems and anticipatory action frameworks (e.g., early action protocols). This is also needed for understanding differential vulnerabilities, exposure dynamics, and potential synergies and asynergies for anticipatory action procedures in a multi-hazard context.
One resource that can support this is the Climate Resilience Measurement for Communities tool, which Practical Action uses with communities to identify hazard-specific risks, establish ways to reduce vulnerabilities to the identified risks, and plan interventions for strengthening overall community resilience.
2. Strengthen forecasting capacities and implement impact-based forecasting
Effective anticipatory action requires an understanding of what the impacts of a hazard might be, rather than what the hazard might do; this is needed to set up appropriate actions, establish the thresholds for acting, and inform requirements for lead times.
Impact-based forecasting can provide insights into potential cascading impacts from the primary hazard, which can trigger or amplify subsequent hazards; such insights can support more targeted plans and procedures for anticipatory action. To provide such forecasts, it is crucial to develop formal data-sharing agreements across agencies (e.g., hydrometeorological, geological, health) and across geographies (e.g., from local to national, across governance borders). In Bolivia and Peru, for example, Practical Action has used open-source technologies and Lidar stations to enhance forecasts, as well as providing training sessions on impact-based forecasting for flash floods.
3. Coordinate the dissemination and communication of anticipatory action protocols
Multi-risk events can constrain operational capacity, with actions for the first hazard no longer relevant or suitable when a consequent or compounding hazard occurs. Developing clear protocols, in coordination with all stakeholders responsible for early warnings and anticipatory action, can help identify synergies for multi-hazard contexts, thereby enhancing the use of limited resources.
For example, scenario-based approaches can identify impact-level triggers and associated actions that address multiple hazards, which can be incorporated into anticipatory action protocols and communication strategies tailored to community needs and local contexts.
Through the ‘Anticipatory action in the Andes’ project, anticipatory action protocols tailored to community needs have been developed in collaboration with municipalities and Practical Action. These protocols are shared with local communities by trained community-volunteer groups and are tested in simulations and drills with the participation of communities, trained community groups, and municipal platforms for disaster risk management.
4. Build on existing community brigades and networks
Existing community action groups, such as community brigades or risk-management committees, often play a fundamental role in mobilizing communities before and during a disaster. These groups can also support effective anticipatory actions ahead of multiple hazards.
In Bolivia and Peru, trained community brigades were formed to support flood preparedness and response, and have since been active during earthquakes and wildfires. These community brigades increase communities’ understanding of hydrometeorological risks and ensure community members recognize warning messages and take relevant actions. Including brigades in the design, dissemination and implementation of anticipatory action protocols for multi-hazard scenarios strengthens their capacity to respond to complex hazards and contexts.
5. Leverage existing mandates for MHEWSs and anticipatory action
Established governance and institutional arrangements are needed for MHEWSs and anticipatory action to be effective. For MHEWSs, this includes financing to set up and operationalize the system; for anticipatory action, this extends to the pre-agreed financing needed for actions to take place when the trigger threshold is reached.
Existing mandates and structures for MHEWSs, such as Pillar 4 of the Early Warnings for All initiative, can be adapted to ensure that anticipatory action is funded as a critical, complementary part component of national- and local-level early warning systems and disaster risk management. Such institutionalization is preferable to actions being implemented separately from warnings.
Organizations that work with communities to build resilience to multiple hazards can help bridge the divide between early warning systems and anticipatory action, and ensure that at-risk communities receive the information, support and resources they need to act ahead of multiple, interacting hazards.
The need to establish further people-centred MHEWSs for anticipatory action
MHEWSs and anticipatory action can stop predictable multi-hazards from becoming humanitarian emergencies. Designing MHEWSs and anticipatory actions that are people-centred – for example, using approaches such as the Climate Resilience Measurement for Communities tool, or working with existing community action groups – helps to ensure that these systems provide tailored, timely and understandable warnings and actions that are suited to people’s needs and capacities. Yet, as our research shows, these systems are lacking in many places.
To address this – and while acknowledging the momentum building for research into MHEWSs – we need more tools, case studies and evidence of the impacts, benefits and lessons. This is especially true for the Global South, which faces disproportionate impacts from climate-related hazards.
This blog was originally published by Anticipation Hub. It shares insights from the paper ‘Opportunities and challenges for people-centered multi-hazard early warning systems: perspectives from the Global South’. Practical Action, with support of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Z Zurich Foundation, has launched a Community of Practice on Anticipatory Action and Early Warning to share knowledge on anticipatory action in the Latin America region, which builds on Practical Action’s work to strengthen anticipatory action in the Andes.
Comments