This paper explores the new opportunities and challenges for ensuring accountability to affected populations related to disaster risk financing. It draws on Start Network experience in Pakistan, Senegal, Madagascar and Kenya to discuss possible issues and challenges that DRF programming can present for accountability, and steps which can be taken to address these.
A new series of technical discussion papers by the Start Network, the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies explores how evolving disaster risk financing (DRF) approaches could be a game changer in acting earlier, quicker and more effectively to predictable humanitarian crises. The papers are attempting to redefine how DRF meets humanitarian objectives. Building on the practical experience of the Start Network and IFRC the papers call for a move from the traditional DRF sovereign approach to a more human-impact driven approach to risk financing, identifying the financial and operational needs from the ground up; an ‘impact before instruments approach.’ Each paper explores the need for such a renewed approach whilst identifying some of the technical challenges and posing solutions to make disaster risk financing work most effectively in the humanitarian context. The aim is to ignite dialogue and build collaboration around key technical challenges whilst highlighting some key solutions to unlock the potential of DRF for humanitarian action.
This document outlines the governance structure of Start Ready. This group, accountable to the Board of Trustees, holds delegated oversight and decision-making authority about issues pertaining to Start Ready. The Terms of Reference outline the purposes and responsibilities of the committee, composition & tenure, voting responsibilities, and reporting & management structures.
As the Start Network continues to focus on Disaster Risk Financing programming, this research was commissioned to analyse the issues and additional considerations around gender in DRF programming. Making programming most effective includes ensuring that the DRF systems that we build or support are fully gender-sensitive and adequately account for gender differences at different points of the project cycle. This includes how gender issues might differ across different hazard types (eg. fast vs. slow onset) and geographic contexts, and the approaches we can take to account for them. Specifically, the purpose of this research is to answer the following two questions: 1) Which points in DRF System development and implementation are likely to have the most significant gendered aspects? How might this vary between hazards and contexts? 2) How can our disaster risk financing ‘building blocks’ (i.e the guidance we give to Start Network members for building quality DRF systems) be enhanced to fully mainstream gender? This research was led by Practical Action Consulting and the case studies were carried out by CARE Bangladesh and CARE Philippines, with close support from the Start Network.
In 2021, Start Network commissioned a piece of research to analyse issues around gender for Disaster Risk Finance programming, in order to make recommendations to help us ensure the DRF systems we build and support are fully gender-sensitive, and to ensure that our programmes adequately account for gender differences at different points of the project cycle. Based on the ‘Missing Voices’ methodology developed by Practical Action, the research sought to hear from those individuals who are most marginalised, to gain insight into their experiences in order to design more inclusive approaches to disaster risk management. The research included a deep dive into two case studies - Bangladesh and the Philippines - to illustrate the gendered dimensions of DRF programming with real-life experiences.
Start Network implements a range of early action programmes to enable communities to act ahead of potential hazards. One of the challenges involved in delivering impactful early action interventions is ensuring that assistance reaches community members at the right time, i.e., before some community members are forced to resort to negative coping mechanisms such as taking children out of school, cutting down on meals or incurring debts for food provision. Intervention timing can differ within the same country and from one region or community to another. Qualitative data collected from community members provides crucial insights that help us determine the right windows of opportunity for interventions. However, this longitudinal qualitative data requires time to analyse and infer lessons, which can make it difficult for decision makers who have little time to read detailed qualitative accounts. Start Network, through our ARC Replica programme, collected qualitative data about the lived experiences of community members in various parts of Senegal over a six month period. This article explains the visualisations curated via Data Spoiler, and outlines the key findings from the monthly check-ins across 22 sentinel sites. It is intended for data practitioners and decision makers to enable them to: 1) Understand how community voices can inform early action programme design and 2) Explore new ways of using qualitative data to inform decision making around early action
