Search

Begin New Search Political Geography South Sudan Author Peter Hailey

1. Seeing in the Dark: Real-Time Monitoring in Humanitarian Crises

Author:
Daniel Maxwell, Erin Lentz, Kamau Wanjohi, Daniel Molla, Matthew Day, Peter Hailey, Christopher Newton, and Anna Colom
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Feinstein International Center, Tufts University
Abstract:
Humanitarian information systems typically provide analysis to predict crisis, assess needs, direct program resources, and assess short- to medium-term effects of programs. But much of this information is “chunky”—a single estimate of “needs,” for example, can be expected to direct resources and programming for up to a full year (IASC 2020). A single early warning scenario might be expected to provide information about potential hazards and the exposure of population to the ill-effects of that hazard for three to four months. And almost by definition, early warning analyses are grounded in known and likely hazards, “population in need” (PIN) figures are based on the impacts of known shocks, and program resources are (or should be) allocated on the basis of known and projected PIN figures. There have long been questions about the timeliness of humanitarian information and especially about the extent to which information initiates appropriate and timely actions (Buchanan-Smith and Davies 1995; Bailey 2012; Lentz et al. 2020). And there have always been concerns that circumstances can change in shorter time periods than standard humanitarian analysis procedures can pick up, so interest in real-time monitoring (RTM) as a component of humanitarian information systems has increased for at least the past decade or so (FSNAU 2015).
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Humanitarian Aid, Famine, Food Security, Humanitarian Intervention, Conflict, and Nutrition
Political Geography:
Middle East, Yemen, Somalia, Malawi, South Sudan, and Africa

2. Towards Anticipatory Information Systems and Action: Notes on Early Warning and Early Action in East Africa

Author:
Daniel Maxwell and Peter Hailey
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Feinstein International Center, Tufts University
Abstract:
Despite humanitarian information being more available than ever, confusion persists as to what the information means, how to analyze it and turn it into actionable evidence, and how to ensure that evidence-based actions are actually undertaken on a timely basis. The key points of confusion and issues include: The difference between current status information, projections of populations in need, and early warning of threats or hazards. The difference between “hard” numbers (implying things that have already happened and can be counted) versus probabilistic information (implying things that are likely, but not certain, to happen). Linkages, or the lack thereof, between information systems and policy or programmatic action to anticipate, mitigate, or respond to a shock or worsening situation. Despite the fact that conflict is the most common factor driving extreme humanitarian crises, conflict analysis is the weakest part of early warning and information systems. The information systems do not (or minimally) engage with the communities at risk of shocks or resulting humanitarian crises. This paper reviews these and a number of additional issues with contemporary humanitarian information and early warning systems. While the cases focus on the East Africa region, they have broader implications as well.
Topic:
Disaster Relief, Humanitarian Aid, Food, Famine, Food Security, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Uganda, Kenya, North Africa, Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Sudan