Download the complete report (3.6 Mb, 204 pages)

To order a print version of WDR 2009, please fill in the form .

Modern early-warning systems emerged in the 1970s and 1980s in response to drought-induced famine in Africa. Now, other hazard-specific early-warning systems have emerged, especially in developed countries, for frequent hazards. Tornado-warning systems in the US, for example, and early-warning systems for volcanoes. But early warning is not only the product of technology – it is also a system that requires an understanding of risk and a link between producers and consumers of information. Early-warning systems can be separated into: risk knowledge; technical services; dissemination of warnings; and the response capacity of the authorities and those at risk. Of these, the most likely to fail are the last two. Enhancing early warning was a priority in the Hyogo process, which placed responsibility for implementation on governments. Local-level involvement, meanwhile, must start with the first element: building risk knowledge.

The people-centred approach to early warning focuses on how communities can understand threats and avoid them. Disasters are partly caused by external hazards, but they also stem simply from vulnerability: people being in the wrong place without adequate protection. Perhaps the most well-known risk assessment method of recent years is the “vulnerability and capacity assessment”, developed by the Red Cross Red Crescent. There is a consensus that information must extend to communities so as to facilitate their adoption of protective actions. The linking of early warning and early action with development aspirations is what motivates people to engage. Factors as diverse as knowledge, power, culture, environment, lifestyle and personality often determine whether people heed warnings. Engaging people outside any warning system is called the “last mile” – a term that expresses the sentiment that warnings often do not reach those who need them most. Addressing vulnerability in disaster reduction is often similar to promoting development, but in the developed world “top-down” approaches to risk assessment and early warning dominate.

Faced with rising risks associated with climate change, early action is more important than ever, but it works best when it spans a range of timescales – anticipating disaster by days, months, even decades. In the very long term, this “disaster risk reduction” could include adjusting development plans and enforcing building codes, but also working with local communities to assess the risks they face – particularly when these are increasing. Many scientific agencies have a mandate to contribute to development plans and are eager to do so. But early-warning products can be too technical and include large uncertainties, and they do not naturally lead humanitarian actors to a decision. Donors cannot afford to only fund disaster response: both development assistance and humanitarian action can be made more effective by increased early action .

Climate change is offering us the ultimate early warning. There is a vast amount of scientific evidence uniting experts the world over, which points to a highly changeable climate for the coming decades and beyond. We have an opportunity for early action and we must seize it right now. Vulnerability to climate extremes, variability and uncertainty can be addressed today, to build resilient communities that can cope with whatever the climate brings in the future. To achieve this, climate needs to be mainstreamed into sustainable development strategies that address current inequalities and failings. Climate information is needed in decision-making processes at all levels, from policy-makers to individual farmers. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies set up its Climate Centre in 2002. The aim is to integrate climate into regular activities.

There has been good progress in preventing the mass starvation last witnessed in the 1980s. But a similar pattern of food crises – though not as catastrophic – has continued more or less unabated since. In the Greater Horn of Africa, 20 million people face hunger, while transitory hunger and malnutrition, as a consequence of natural hazards or man-made crises, remain a major global challenge. CARE International estimates 220 million people now confront a food emergency – almost twice as many as in 2006. A simple definition of early warning in a food-security context is data collection to monitor people’s access to food so as to provide timely notice when a food crisis threatens. Early-warning systems have been adopted by governments, and although they face technical, institutional and financial limitations, they have performed relatively well. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification systematizes analysis to assist decision-makers. But early warnings are only as useful as the responses they elicit, and with food insecurity and famine, the authorities tend to wait until the critical phase, and then react with lifesaving measures while ignoring livelihoods. The assertion that “famines don’t occur in democracies” raises questions about governance and accountability. But compare the willingness to mobilize huge sums for the global financial crisis with the parsimonious response to recent humanitarian appeals for the world’s poorest.