 Good morning and afternoon colleagues thanks for joining us today and welcome to the webinar adopting anticipatory action and shock responsive social protection to strengthen disaster preparedness and resilience. Learnings from the ASEAN region. I hope you can all hear me well if you have any technical problems please write in the chat box and we'll give you assisted by our fabulous zoom team. This event today is co-hosted with the ASEAN Secretariat and the Asia Pacific technical working group on anticipatory action. It is facilitated by our core platform as an ongoing series led by FAO's Office of Emergencies and Resilience. Core is a knowledge sharing platform that works towards generating learning and distributing evidence based knowledge to support decision making and program processes. This event is also made possible through the two things of the European Union under the partnership program contributing to the global network against food crises. And hi my name is Catherine Jones I am the anticipatory action lead for Asia in the Pacific based out of FAO's regional office in Bangkok. But I also wear another hat as co-chair of the Asia Pacific Regional Technical Working Group on anticipatory action and I'll be your emcee for today and moving you through the different parts of the webinar. In regards to logistics the webinar today is split into two sections. The first is based on looking at the adoption institutionalization and financing of anticipatory action and shock response of social protection within ASEAN. The second half will showcase the impact of COVID-19 cash transfers and after these two presentations we'll address as many of those questions as I was saying above in that Q&A box so do keep them coming. Today we have a great lineup of speakers to dive into these two topics. And today we've provided welcome remarks from director Susanna Yango who's the office of civil defense of the Philippines and also the co-chair of ACDM Working Group on prevention and mitigation. Mr Davide Zappa who is the thematic lead on disaster preparedness for DG ECHO. We also have Ms Hang Pham who is a senior resilience officer for FAO's regional office for Asia Pacific. And after these welcoming words and being able to set the scene in that way we then move into those thematic areas that I was talking about before which will be led by our independent consultant Mrs Zoe Scott who led the evaluation to really come to these results of a multi-purpose multi-partner, sorry, evaluation of a project in ASEAN and she'll be sharing those critical findings with us today. We're also joined by an expert panel to help us really dive into these specific key themes that we're going to go through today and then one of them is Dr. Yanti Dianthe who is assistant director for disaster management and humanitarian assistance division with ASEAN. Ms Emma Flaherty who is a thematic lead for the risk-informed early action partnership also known as the REAP. We also have Tui Anh who is a program analyst for UN Women in Vietnam and Ms Laika Saranas who is the chief of staff ministry of social services and development for BAM in the Philippines. It's a really packed agenda but some really great speakers to come and shed some light on their experiences on both anticipatory action, shock-responsive social protection and cash transfers. Now without further ado I would like to hand the floor to director Susanna to officially open our event and provide some welcoming remarks. Director, over to you. Thank you very much Catherine. Distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. It is my privilege to welcome you all to this webinar entitled adopting anticipatory action and shock-responsive social protection to strengthen disaster preparedness and resilience that is learning and experiences from the ASEAN region. I want to thank you all for making time available to join the webinar and share your perspective on this important topic. The issue of climate change is a major concern to ASEAN. A Southeast Asia is one of the most at risk regions in the world. Countries are exposed to a variety of climate related hazards including flood, typhoon, droughts and extreme temperatures. However, technological advances are making it easier than ever before to forecast natural hazards, without growing availability of information comes a growing responsibility to act on it. Anticipatory action and shock-responsive social protection are becoming critical tools in the ASEAN region and around the globe to protect lives and livelihoods rather than waiting for the worst to materialize. I would like to thank the ASEAN secretariat alongside the Asia Pacific Regional Technical Working Group on anticipatory action for hosting this webinar. And we look forward to discussing how far we have to come, these approaches, but critically look forward to where we need to go. We are all strong advocates for both approaches with the recent developments of guidelines including the ASEAN guidelines on disaster responsive social protection to increase resilience established in 2020, and the forthcoming ASEAN framework on anticipatory action and disaster management. We are looking forward to putting these guidelines further into action over the coming years. We trust that we are not alone with this fight as we many partners putting forward their efforts and various contributions of our policies producing meaningful and tangible outputs and outcomes in many of our vulnerable communities. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my gratitude to the various supports provided and for taking initiatives to build knowledge and share learning in the region such as this webinar. Lessons learned on cash transfers in response to COVID-19 will also be drawn upon from cash transfer pilots to 10,000 households in Myanmar, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The critical outcomes for this activity can shape the way cash is delivered, hold through social protection programs in the future. It is important to take stock of these findings and how they can be applied to anticipatory action and shock responsive social protection programming moving forward. We look forward to the discussion ahead and thank you very much. Let us all stay safe everyone. Thank you. Thank you so much for welcoming Words Director and I really like how you framed it in this fight together and really focusing on that collaboration aspect. So really thanks for bringing that through right in the forefront of this webinar today. I would like to hand the floor to Davideh Zappa from DG Echo to provide us with a little bit more of setting the scene and build up what Director Susana has just said over to you Davideh. Good afternoon. Good morning to all of your colleagues. My name is Davideh Zappa. I work as a regional disaster preparedness thematic expert for DG Echo across the Asia Pacific region from Bangkok. Reflecting back to the time when in 2019 we decided to finance what proved to be a very successful partnership between us and FAO together with a number of other DG Echo partners. We are very encouraged that having joined our forces to act before crisis and forge a sustainable and resilient future, leaving the one behind as paid important dividends. This is because our partnership happened at a really critical juncture, as this is a moment in time when all hands on deck are needed. Today, like Ben, global humanitarian needs are at an all-time high and continue to grow. Even ahead of the onset of the unfolding crisis in Ukraine and Afghanistan, some 237 million people were forecasted to require humanitarian assistance this year, meaning a 40% increase or last year, while extreme poverty has risen in 2020 for the first time in 22 years. In 2019 likewise today, crisis continue to be driven by fragility and conflict, amplified by climate change, and the impact of what was to unfold as COVID-19 pandemic. Those who are most vulnerable and marginalized are often the least prepared for acting early, ahead of a current and protected hazards manifestation in the Asia Pacific region and elsewhere, including situations of conflict, crisis, and violence, which have further compounded their vulnerabilities. The partnership we discussed today has delivered an unequivocal powerful message, investing in preparing for and to act early pays dividend. We know that our collection collective action to date, for example, by supporting the definition of the asset and disaster responses social protection to increase resilience guidelines has contributed to an unprecedented response by asset member states in terms of scale, speed and magnitude to respond to COVID-19. Evidence that anticipatory action saves lives reduces needs and contribute to protect developmental gains is also growing. What we then called innovative approaches are now well embedded in the asset and agreement on disaster management and emergency response, and its work plan 2021-2025. In our own digi echo DP policy guidance, but DP guidance note, we have also prominently feature how we view preparedness as a way to promote anticipation, earlyness and flexibility, as critical elements to manage disasters more efficiently and effectively and mitigating their impact. We are encouraging but we need to collectively do more in digi echo's views free key dimensions would continue to call for our collective concern and action. Firstly, digi echo's targeted DP investment has certainly contributed to support the normative space definition within the asset. This remains to be done after substantive foundational work has been laid as this is a vital importance to percolate at all administrative levels. Secondly, the evidence base of anticipatory action that remains elusive in the run up to the Asia Pacific Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction later in 2022. As we are discussing today as well as new partnerships such as the FAU digi echo programmatic partnership offer us a very important opportunity to make anticipatory action and integral part of the design of humanitarian programs and the delivery of humanitarian assistance. For this, I cannot emphasize enough how crucial credible metrics are as part of any project deliverables. Secondly, the best use of limited humanitarian financing is to test anticipatory action approaches, which should be then closely by states with the known systems, inclusive a shock response to social protection. This is about tools, as well as toolboxes. We are there, we are there by clear that the role of digi echo is not to substitutively finance anticipatory action approaches, but rather to promote their application and sustainability potential that we will hear today. The importance of our practice and elevate our message did school present potential as preparing for and acting early ahead of shops and crisis is pressing. Let me conclude with the reaffirming by digi echo's approach is always to put people at the center of what we do leveraging investments we make to reinforce local preparedness and response capacity, whenever possible working at system level. We are looking forward to continue partnering with you in this discourse to contribute to identifying clearly and measurable commitments to closely identify the gaps and scale up anticipatory action. Thank you. Thanks so much for those encouraging words and backing from digi echo in this area of work. I really like the point that you hinted at the end there and sustainability we've got to really look towards how can we grow these systems but also make them sustainable in the future so thanks for highlighting that among many points to lay down the scene for us today. I'll now like to pass the floor to my colleague miss hung palm to provide a little bit more on the setting the scene so hung over to you. Thank you Catherine and thank you David, the director Susanna and David for the inspiring opening remarks. Maybe allow me to just add a little bit on the background of the initiatives that FAO digi echo and other partners have been supporting in the discussions, the learning from which we are sharing today in this webinar. So, when David mentioned the asian agreement on disaster management and emergency respond as a very kind of like inspiring tool that many of us commit to support the implementations in the way asian is be hitting disaster management globally. But the asian is also very much ahead of the game in seeing the role of social protections in strengthening disaster preparedness and resilience reflected through the regional declarations on social protection in 2013, and the regional framework for implementations. And these two framework as well as many other enabling policy in the asian have been the entry point for us to look at this agenda of anticipatory action and shop responsive social protections in the regions. So we started actually into in 2017, with two parallel initiatives supported by DGA call piloting the drought and dispatch reactions in Vietnam, and unpacking what shop responsive social protections mean for countries in the region in Cambodia, Myanmar, Philippines and Vietnam. And the reason it's learning from the piloting of anticipatory action as well as developing the shop responsive social protection country roadmap and the asian disasters responsive social protection guideline. So in the following years, with continuous support from DGA call, we try to implement the asian disaster responsive social protection guidelines in the country roadmap, why setting up the anticipatory action system in the countries and trying to align ourselves with national social protections and disaster management systems in the countries, while also seeing how these two approaches actually link and maximize our effort in disaster preparedness and response. So, in the same period as Derek Susana mentioned, there were opportunity for us to pilot the cash transfer in response to COVID-19, but also seeing whether we can piggybacking on the national social protection social assistance programs and learning from how we can do it better in the future. So, ultimately, as Catherine mentioned for sustainability, we aim for the take up of anticipatory action and shop responsive social protections by governments, humanitarian as well as development partners to strengthen the disaster preparedness, making humanitarian and development assistance more effective more resilient to disasters and addressing the address the humanitarian and development as well as peace nexus. It's not easy. We are learning a lot in that journey that we are sharing today and I really look forward for our discussions to see how together collectively we can promote these innovative approaches to make our world a more resilient place for everybody. Thank you and over to you Catherine. Thank you so much. And thank you for bringing through that keyword resilience. That's something we really need to keep in our mind when we're looking at anticipatory action and shock responsive social protection in the ASEAN region. So, keep that kind of thought in your mind about how can we connect this better to resilience and the resilience models in the region and feel free to write any questions down in the chat box if you've got anything you would like us to move forward or dissect in this conversation today. We've made it a great kind of opening and welcoming remarks that allows us to understand why is this topic important, but now we're going to be moving to. How has this happened, what have we done so far so really answering that key question, and I'd like to invite to the floor Miss Zoe Scott to help us dive into that and really explore where we've gone with anticipatory action and shock responsive social protection agenda over the past few years. Okay, the floor is yours. Great. Thank you very much Catherine and I just to start off I apologize my internet connection is a little bit choppy this morning. So please bear with me. So as Catherine mentioned from around September to December last year, I conducted an independent evaluation of the work that FAO have been doing with other agencies and NGOs across the region. We particularly had case studies in Vietnam, the Philippines, Cambodia and Myanmar. But despite having those specific case studies we were looking at progress across the region with anticipatory action and shock responsive social protection. So what I want to do first of all is I want to check that we're all talking about the same thing when we say anticipatory action and shock responsive social protection. Because I found very much through the conversations I had with people during the evaluation that these terms meant different things to different people into different organizations. So to be really clear up front by anticipatory action and talking about actions that are triggered by a forecast and anticipate the shock. I'm not talking about kind of just general preparedness activities, but it has to be actions that are triggered by a forecast. When I say shock responsive social protection and talking about when social protection systems and programs have been scaled up as a way of getting support to people quickly. Now you can scale them up in an anticipatory way and get support to people ahead of a shock, but more often than not the way this is done is that, and they're scaled up after a shock, for example, COVID-19, and they become a way of channeling people ahead of a shock after the shock. And next slide please. And so the specific evaluation questions that we were addressing, and where we have three overarching questions. The first one to what extent to Bayesian member states adopted an institutionalized anticipatory action and shock responsive social protection, and what are the key lessons learned. The second question is what progress has been made and what lessons can be learned on how to best support strategic and sustainable financing for anticipatory action and shock responsive social protection. So I'm going to talk about these two questions first, then we'll take some discussion from the panel and then I'll come back and present on the third question, which is what are the impacts on beneficiaries and what lessons can be learned from the COVID-19 transfers that the project undertook in Vietnam, Myanmar and the Philippines. So, in terms of this question of to what extent have ACM member states adopted an institution. I do fear we may have lost Zoe. Is that just me or everyone. Okay, no problem I can come in and present the rest of her slides and hopefully she'll join us a little bit later. So in regards to the adoption and institutionalization of anticipatory action there's been a rapid and impressive acceptance of anticipatory action and shock responsive social protection across the ASEAN and within member states over recent years with multiple examples that we've seen in ASEAN and the member states strongly owning committing to the approaches to a clear regional policy framework in place. And we've seen that in regards to for instance the anticipatory action really growing in in the Philippines and other areas. So Zoe I see that you're back with us again. It has to happen at least once in one week. Okay, great. And so on. So then if I go on to the second point which was that you know the project really did play a key role in the success is somebody who's an evaluator it's quite unusual for there to be for all different stakeholders to have a unanimous view that a project has played a key role. And that was the case with this project so that was that was really good to see and one thing that was quite unusual was this two pronged approach in that was embedded in the design of the project, which was, and that there would be regional collaboration through ASEAN at a regional level, and that that would be combined with country level engagement and we found that that was really quite mutually reinforcing. So maybe discussions were happening at happening at a regional level, and where these approaches were being promoted, government officials were going to those regional meetings hearing about things going on in other countries, took that learning home tried things out in their own country and then they also took their learning back to the regional forum so really that was quite a mutually reinforcing approach, which I think it's worth flagging. However, I think it's fair to say that was there's quite a lot of progress with the adoption and acceptance of anticipatory action and shock responsive social protection as ideas. I think there's less progress has been made on the actual implementation of the approaches. I have to say I think that's understandable. For both of these approaches they require enormous changes in government machinery, and in the way that all the different stakeholders including humanitarian actors work and, and really the way that we think about disasters and disaster response. So, and not just that we also the project was trying to be implemented in the context of a huge pandemic, and as you know I don't need to remind everybody on the call, how disrupted that has been to all kinds of development and humanitarian programming. Whilst COVID-19 was a barrier to progress it to a certain extent. I also want to flag though that it did offer governments the opportunity and the incentive to actually put shock responsive social protection into practice, often for the very first time and we'll come back to that. And this wasn't just in the ACN region this was globally a lot of government suddenly kind of sprang into action and use social protection in a way that they hadn't previously. Okay. And so, and parts of the project part of the evaluation what we were doing is we were trying to identify key enablers that anticipate reaction and show. And key barriers, and to the approaches. We found the strong came across was a strong institutional architecture with interagency coordination. And now there were countries like Cambodia that had taken really big steps forward in this regard, and it became it was really clearly important because anticipatory action and shock responsive social protection, sort of sit in this, and all can fall between the gaps between development humanitarian climate, different line ministries different UN agencies that actually having a mechanism that that coordinates and brings together the different ministries and different agencies can be very very beneficial. We also found a key enabler was having high impact disasters like COVID-19. It just pushes it up the political agenda and the whole awareness of how we need to plan and we need to prepare. And as I've mentioned, having ACN engagement was really beneficial. Also having support from humanitarian agencies, and by support I don't just mean the fact that humanitarian agencies have been talking quite, there's quite a lot of noise at the moment about anticipatory action and shock responsive social protection, but there's also actual finance for example, the surf, the draft, the start funds, there's opportunities to access real money to kind of have a go at implementing anticipatory action. So those were the key enablers that we identified. However, there were also a lot of barriers to anticipatory action and shock responsive social protection. The biggest one by far that was repeatedly mentioned was accessing finance and not just accessing finance to be able to do anticipatory action and shock responsive social protection, but just getting that finance to flow through the system. So really, particularly from a government perspective, there are lots of public financial management challenges in terms of actually being able to access money ahead of a disaster. I'll talk a bit more about that in a moment. And there's also another barrier is just a lack of trust in forecasts. That's probably something that a lot of people in the call will be familiar with. Confusion over terminology. I mentioned this at the beginning. This was a major problem. And lots of people in government said that they just don't understand what these terms mean. They feel new. They make, they make them feel a bit uncomfortable. They're not quite sure the differences or that kind of thing. Also limited capacity, technical capacity, particularly for anticipatory action. So that's around setting triggers and thresholds and forecasting. For coordination. And finally, lack of compelling evidence. I think there was a feeling that there are kind of a few studies of that are, you know, piecemeal. But there's not like a strong body of evidence that is really compelling if you're a government official to shift from this kind of the creating the policy environment that has successfully been done. But we now need to shift attention on to actual implementation and moving beyond these kind of piecemeal pilots that use parallel systems to actually something that is scalable. Okay, so the next question that we looked at was, as Catherine mentioned was around the sustainable financing a strategic and sustainable financing for anticipatory action and shock responses social protection. And so we found that there had been some initial progress around this whole question of how should the approaches be financed at the regional level, but there was less focus on it at the country level and overall it hadn't been as much of a focus of the work as setting this kind of the more regional policy piece had. As I mentioned before, COVID-19 has prompted more government financing of shock responses social protection and has ever been seen in the region. And that is a really positive potential tipping point. I think, you know, we could really build on this and go forward from here. However, when you think about anticipatory action, it's a bit different in terms of the Philippines was the only country where we found government had actually used their own budget for anticipatory action and actually there was only one example of that at a local level and it hadn't triggered at the time of the evaluation. So, and so there's a difference in the way that shock responses social protection and anticipatory action are being financed. One has taken steps forward with being government financed but anticipatory action is still very much in the donor space. And part of the reason for this I think is, you know, that major changes to budgeting and public financial management are required for for both of these approaches to be implemented. In some countries, you know, there are anti corruption laws, for example, that mean it's just not possible in the current architecture for finances to be released ahead of a disaster. So there's a lot that needs to happen in terms of the mechanics or the pipework if you like to mean that finance can flow to these sorts of initiatives. And that all means, I mean, I'm sure most of you would be aware we just go back to the previous slide, but you know public financial management is is not something that happens overnight and legal reform doesn't happen overnight. We need to be quite mindful that some of these changes will take quite a long time. They will take high levels of government commitment. And then particularly they will take collaboration with ministries of finance and I think that's something that we could get a bit better at is actually collaborating with ministries of finance development banks maybe it's a more familiar partner than for some of the people on the call. We just need to move on to the next slide it's the one with the diet. And here we are right okay so as I said, there's actually quite a limited set of financial instruments that are being used to pay for anticipatory action and shock responses social protection in the region as I mentioned and anticipatory action is typically financed by humanitarian agencies. And so that's very much if you if you look at the diagram here, and the instruments listed on the left are arranged ahead of a shock, and the instruments on the right are arranged after a shock. So anticipatory action is very much being paid for out of that yellow block at the top. So it's, it's kind of pre arranged humanitarian so donor led funding for that shock responses social protection and in contrast is typically being funded by ex post instruments it's being arranged in advance. And that's all of those ones on the right and we did find examples of all of them, including, you know money coming from the humanitarian sector also post disaster credit, and then budget reallocation so that's when a government has to sort of hastily redo their budgets to try to release money for this kind of thing. And I think it's so there's a lot of instruments that aren't being used and I think it was I find it quite interesting that there was actually quite little knowledge or appetite for using some of them particularly insurance and contingent credit lines so there was much less attention on that, and in people's thinking of how to finance these approaches. So just to wrap up, I will share a few recommendations that came out of this, this analysis. So, first of all, we found that kind of future programming needs a clearer more coherent and cohesive narrative and design with a budget that matches the scope and ambition. And I would say in, because this was a multi country, quite different activities took place in the different countries and maybe they could have been more coordinated. And very much it was like people either worked on anticipatory action or they worked on shock responses social protection. Unfortunately, though, the work didn't quite get to the point of being able to look at synergies between the two and look at how social protection systems could be used in an anticipatory way for example. I would also say that I think it's phenomenal what was able to be done with quite a small budget the budget was, you know, around 3 million, and the scope and the ambition for this was enormous. And so it was a tight time scale and a tight budget for what was able to be achieved. The second recommendation and I think I've made this point is that really we need to pivot now and focus on country level implementation and building government systems for this, for these approaches. Thirdly, as I said, we really need to do more work on financing, including looking at a country level at what can appear. I think Zoe may have dropped out again so I'll just follow up from what she was saying so unfortunately as you know with webinars sometimes we get a little bit of internet issues but no problem as she was saying in regards to more work is needed on financing including the PFM reform to support the flow of funds, strategic use of instruments and work with MDBs in the Ministry of Finances as well which is really important to really see how can we make these approaches sustainable in the future. We really need to think about that financing side and their kind of role to play in the wider scheme when it comes to the financing of anticipatory actions and shock responsive social protection. We also need to build capacities for anticipatory action and early warning particularly designing anticipatory action triggers and thresholds which can be a bit of a sticking issue for some areas and people that does take some scientist kind of science rigor to really understand that kind of area of work, so it's really good to build that up in that capacity as well. Zoe I was just on point four but I'll hand you back for point five. Thank you. And so also, I think we need to upgrade to more strategic monitoring and evaluation at the moment we're doing, you know, an evaluation over here and one evaluation of a small project over here and maybe a lessons learn review in another area that's not kind of coordinated and strategic to build up into something that's really compelling and convincing. So I think we need to be strategic about the evidence generation and monitoring and evaluation work that we're doing, but also not just the commissioning of that work but the sharing of it. And then sickly I think we need to clarify the terminology that we that we're using that was such a barrier honestly I, I cannot overemphasize that one enough we really need to get much better as a international community at what we're talking about and what we mean by these terms and just continually rehearsing them and being really strict with ourselves and in how we use these terms. Okay, so thank you and thank you for bearing with me. I do apologize again for the internet issues so I'm going to hand over really quickly to two of our panelists. So I'm Dr. Rianti Gelanti from ACN so I wanted to ask you a question because I mentioned about how this two pronged approach had worked very well with having work at a regional level and work at a country level. Can you explain to us how ACN is planning to kind of continue in this area and continue to encourage these approaches in ACN member states. Yes, thank you Zoe for the opportunity for the very informative presentation on the results of the study on how ACN have implemented our program on social response, shock-responsive protection and anticipatory action. So let me respond to your question on how would be we implement this through the topic of disaster financing and looking forward. So I would like to highlight here two major mechanisms related to financing to take this forward. So the first is through the Atmard work program 2021-2025 and also the ACN Disaster is finance and insurance program which is cross sector in nature. I will explain both in great detail. So the Atmard work program 2021-2025 was developed based on the foundation of Atmard with the mission to enhance and support ACN disaster reduction and disaster management through various mechanism sectoral cooperation, capacity building, innovation, mobilization, partnership and stronger coordination. So particularly one of the seven guidelines within this Atmard work program is related to finance and resource mobilization. And particularly in the priority program two of prevention mitigation we have outcome related to the course for expanded reach of ACN disaster financing and insurance program in the region. So then let me highlight you know some of these opportunities which potentially this SRSB and anticipatory action can be considered through the ACN Disaster is finance and insurance. So the ACN Disaster is financing risk and financing roadmap was jointly developed by three sectoral bodies. So Zoe you mentioned on you know the need for this cross sectoral cooperation particularly with the finance sector. So here on ADRFI we have ACN finance and central banks deputies meeting, ACN insurance regulator meetings and ACN committee on disaster management who are the members of the ADRFI mechanism. There are three important phases to highlight on you know how ADRFI have been taken by ACN. So first, which was done in the past 2016-2017 is this is on the phase one of the RFI. It looks at risk information, assessment and modeling, public policy development, knowledge management and training. Of course we looked at some of these programs in detail. During that time, so responsive social protection, anticipatory action may not necessarily be a part of the major agenda. Then in phase two of the RFI, it moves forward to impact focus the RFI program. So the program looks at three initiative, improving data, harnessing risk advisory and also enhancing capacity building among ACN member index and disaster is financing. So thank you so much for the presentation on this various options and by which financing for anticipatory action and are located and this is something that will be taken forward in terms of ACN participation in the RFI. And finally, this is currently being consulted to anticipate and to respond to the impact of COVID. The scope of the RFI phase two is expanded to include other risks and particularly pandemic health risks. So here the activities will be to collect comprehensive data on pandemic health risk to define limits of contingency reserve. This is also potentially where we can consider some of these trigger points and identification of potential financing options that will be concluded as well as socialization of public policies and strategies. So here we have, we can see that, you know, building arm with data capacity building risk advisory, the AMS will be in a better position to consider and put together comprehensive disaster resilience financing, which, you know, cater for disaster management needs, including SRSP and anticipatory action. Finally, I would like to also highlight ASEAN ACADM is in the process of developing or finalizing the ASEAN framework on anticipatory action in disaster management. This provides guidance for defining and contextualizing anticipatory action at the regional level with some consideration on progress at the national level for the ASEAN member states. We hope that this framework is forward looking. It defines the building blocks, including some of the action plan 2021-2035 to mainstream of course anticipatory action and disaster management through the regional efforts. One thing that we see here on your recommendation of the studies, this definitely be considered and will be considered as part of the implementation of or identification of the action plan for the framework of anticipatory action in disaster management 2021-2035. Thank you Zoe. That's great. Thank you so much, Dr Jalanti. And if I could go now to Emma Flatti from REAP and Emma, just REAP is obviously a global partnership, really keen to understand whether these recommendations and the experiences from the evaluation resonate outside just the ASEAN region. What's your view on that? Thanks Zoe and thanks to all the partners for having us here today. I think yes, when we saw the results of this evaluation, it resonated a lot with what we're hearing from partners in REAP, but also some of our own recent research we recently conducted and released a state of play on early action report which tries to take a bit of a global stock take of where we are on this. And if these are issues that are coming up at a global level, I mean of course there's a high level of contextualization to the countries that are studying, not least because ASEAN countries tend to be quite advanced in some of these, in some of the approaches to things like disaster risk financing and like shock responsive social protection, but I wanted to kind of focus on the four findings that really, what we're seeing at a global and regional policy level. The first which you draw a lot of attention to Zoe is the terminology and we were really seeing over the last two years of REAP because for those who don't know, REAP is a fairly wide alliance of different partners working on early action including governments, financing institutions and countries, humanitarian organizations, climate actors, development actors, private sector. It's a very, very broad partnership because that was necessary to take early action to scale, but what that meant became apparent really quickly that we're often talking at odds with each other about different terminology or using terms interchangeably. And that in itself is a serious barrier to actually coordinating in a way that will have impact. And so we received quite a strong push from our partners that we needed to provide some sort of, if not glossary a phrasebook. So we're really happy to see that that has also come across in this evaluation and we're working really closely with the partners, the ACM partners now on the development of both the terminology or a phrasebook for that as well as always because it is, when we go to governments we need to be able to talk about so shock response social protection and early action in a way that is understandable and coherent and clear and and to all to certain to as much an extent as possible speak with one voice. And so I think that that is a major, major issue that we're really glad to see reflected in this report and to work with the ACM partners on it going forward. The other one around the forecasting and the trust and forecasting is the huge issue we've got we've made so many advances in in the production of early warnings and a little bit less on the dissemination of early warnings we probably have more access to information about how predictable the crises are than ever before. And both there is issues around how it's disseminated how it's understood but also when we're going to speak to governments about making huge financial decisions and we need to be able to speak to them in their language we need to understand their balance and we need to understand all of the other things that they are trying to balance decision to act on whether the crisis, whether it's before or after a crisis and so you've alluded to some of that and your findings. For example, the complexity the incredible complexity of public financial management systems and how we need to acknowledge that I think when we engage with governments whether it's at a national or local level. The different challenges that they're having understand their risk tolerance understand when they need to receive risk information in order to make a decision and also to understand and respect what's the level of uncertainty they're willing to work with. And I think this relates as well to the recommendation on evidence and we as a sector and as well I don't know if we call early action sector yet but as a community. And we need to do more to collect the evidence that's available to make it more widely known I think so he's focused in on that as well as that we're not great as actors at sharing the evidence around the place. But also to stop, perhaps may create collecting evidence on the same things we have quite a good degree of evidence available now for humanitarian anticipatory interventions with a quite project focused. And they are maybe quite often qualitative and that's not the kind of evidence that's going to enable a government decision maker to make decisions they need different kinds of evidence. And then non governmental organizations and we need to work with the governments to understand that them them understand that for them so that we from them so that we can we can provide support accordingly and I think one of the things we is trying to do on that the moment is the development of a sort of evidence roadmap where we can plot out where across the whole value chain of early actions all the way from those early warning productions to the boots hitting the ground and understanding where is there evidence that exists already and how could it be used in working with governments and institutions, but where are the gaps and I think what we'll find and we've seen from research done by the Center for Disaster Protection and the Resilience Project and ensure resilience partnership is that we're not there yet in terms of evidence for early action and social protection and more so on social protection we're doing well, but evidence about how national GDP expenditure is going on that. And I think that then the finance issue, as always, is is massive, and both early warning early action and social protection require more investment and different kinds of investment we need to understand how they're being paid for now. What's the potential in terms of how it could be paid for in the future but what are also the challenges and very specific challenges the governments have around this. And I think, you know, social protection and early action they're not panaceas they're not silver bullets alone and they're certainly not together a silver bullet but there is huge potential particularly in some of the ASEAN countries where if we invest in the systems building for both of them, it will have dividends for both areas. We can and released a paper on this in conjunction with FCDO, the UK office, a number of social protection actors last year, where we kind of pointed out the potential there you know we couldn't use social protection systems to disperse early funding, but also we can look at how early action protocols and information can make social protection trigger in a more anticipatory way so there's all this potential there but it requires systems investment and system building but also systems need to be fueled. You know we can do lots of these great scoping exercises that we can do lots of regional and global collaboration but unless money is put into the social protection system or put into the funds that have anticipation windows and it won't, it's not going to have the impact that we want so I think I would kind of end there by saying you know what, just referring to some of the work that was done in 2018 by Courtney Kaba Benton where every, which you found that every dollar spent on safety net and resilience programming in Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia resulted in net benefits of a minimum of $2.30 sets or a maximum of $3.30 sets and 30 cents that they are significant, that's the kind of numbers that we need to give to governments and also to though, we have to work I think and re划 job is to be a support service I suppose to governments and also recognising that you know we do need get the banks involved and we do need to get the international financial institutions on board so we want to work to provide greater guidance and greater evidence to governments but also to work with them to produce the kind of evidence and case studies and suggestions to the broader sector so that we can start to move things at scale in a sustainable way to more anticipatory approaches. So thanks very much. Thanks so much everyone and thanks Zoe, Dr Yanti and Emma for really diving into the whole anticipatory action shock responses social protection space and I think we've got some really good learnings to take away from us but one coherency that's something that for me is is some that really kind of shone through your presentation Zoe and also through what Dr Yanti and also what Emma was saying and what's really exciting is that ASEAN are now producing their framework on anticipatory action and disaster management which is aimed to be launched next to the GPDRR at the end of May so keep an eye out for that and hopefully that will help answer that key question or that key recommendation that you said Zoe is to really look at how can we bring coherency together. I love the the way that we were talking about evidence it's good to know the good the bad the ugly like we really need to get that out there not just shine a light on what's working but really share with each other what isn't. I think that's equally as important as what is working because then we can learn from each other and really grow together again going back to that point I said in the beginning the director Susanna also pointed out is collaboration so making sure that that is at the core of what we're doing here so we can see all these different strands and things really I think flowing around nicely in this kind of anticipatory action shock responsive social protection space so thank you so much Zoe for highlighting that I'm going to pass the floor back to you because now we're going to be looking at cash transfers for COVID-19 how they implemented what they achieved so over to you to answer those key questions for us thanks Zoe. That's right thank you very much Catherine and so we're moving into the second mentioned main evaluation questions the third question is that I put on the slide there so what are the impacts on beneficiaries and what lessons can be learned from the projects COVID-19 transfers in Vietnam Myanmar and the Philippines so to explain the context for this so there was an unplanned pivot of the project due to the pandemic and as as happened with many different programs the when we got to kind of T20 COVID-19 arrived in our world and many projects had to pivot and start doing slightly different things or doing things in different ways so this project and decided with support from ECODG to provide an emergency cash transfers and also to support shock responsive social protection where possible and as a result over 10 000 households were reached at a cost of approximately 44 000 US dollars and cash transfers were provided in Myanmar in Vietnam and in the Philippines and in Cambodia a slightly different approach was taken support was provided to to build systems for social protection and rather than actually the money being the cash transfers itself and I would note that the project funded cash transfers came relatively late in the pandemic particularly for some countries in the in the Philippines it was actually over a year later so I think that does raise questions to how much we can really genuinely call them shock response and so yes I wanted to make that point before we go on and so in terms of impacts the impacts of the cash transfers and so we did surveys across multiple countries and the survey data suggested for Vietnam and Myanmar that the cash was spent mainly on addressing acute basic needs so it was predominantly food people spent it to help meet their basic predominantly food needs in the Philippines it where the cash arrived much later it was slightly different we found that the primary use of the cash was actually to support livelihoods so it was spent on things like buying seeds and buying fertilizer so that was quite interesting just how the timing can have quite a different impact in the lives of beneficiaries and how they choose to spend the money in the Philippines we were able to collect survey data about beneficiaries feelings of negative coping strategies that they had taken or not taken as a result of the transfer so the survey data suggested that the transfers had helped to avoid some negative coping strategies in the short term particularly they'd reduce the need for households to take on more debt and stopped people from families from reducing their food consumption well however because the transfer value overall was and we found that these benefits were short lived and which is unfortunately something that's quite typical of social protection you know you're giving somebody money in the heat of a crisis and you're not necessarily we have I think we have to be realistic about what is possible to achieve with this kind of emergency cash transfer next slide so in terms of opacity generally for shock responsive social protection through these cash transfers it's important to understand that the way they were done in each country it varied greatly the extent to which they leveraged existing social protection programs and systems so for example at one end of the spectrum in one country the cash transfers were given very much as a humanitarian agency delivering emergency cash transfers they did try to work and collaborate with government and do shared work for example on targeting but generally speaking they were delivered as emergency cash transfers at the other end of the spectrum in other countries then funds were just transferred to the government this was the situation in the Philippines and the Philippines government were entirely responsible for the implementation of those cash transfers so it was sort of it was done very differently in each country and overall I would say that only a limited amount of sustainable capacity appears to have been built for shock responsive social protection as a direct result of the cash transfers but I do want to flag that capacity building wasn't an explicit aim and just to remind everybody this was something that this was a pivot it wasn't part of the original design so there wasn't they didn't have the luxury of a design period and working out a capacity building program to run alongside these cash transfers it was and I'm sure we can all cast our minds back to early 2020 when you know it was difficult right it wasn't easy so yes I think more could be done in future if this sort of thing was if this sort of approach was taken in future more could be done to systematically try to build capacity alongside the delivery of cash transfers and I think we found some on the next slide please I think we found some quite interesting lessons around inclusivity and so in several of the countries the agencies involved in this project were specifically encouraging governments that they needed to revise their eligibility because of the enormity of the COVID-19 pandemic to if you if governments just used their standard list of poor people from say three years ago they would be missing COVID-19 were very close to being poor and probably bit below the line in in the foreseeable future so one of the lessons was for very large shocks like COVID-19 we need to revise the eligibility criteria and secondly it's important to run manual systems alongside digital systems so and for in shock responsive social protection generally there's quite a strong push towards using digital systems for payment for registration and they can be great they can be very cost effective they can really be a boost for the efficiency of programs but we can't forget the digital divide and if we want to reach the more remote and poorer communities that can encounter challenges and when when using digital systems we have to run manual systems so manual registration systems manual payment systems alongside the digital ones and thirdly and this is a particular bugbear of mine is really really important to prioritize effective communication with beneficiaries in some of the cases we find scenarios where beneficiaries have been given say 24 hours notice that they needed to be in a certain place to collect their cash transfer we need to be mindful that that's not necessarily going to be possible or it's not going to enable people to travel safely to the the collection site so communication needs to be timely with beneficiaries it needs to give them adequate time to access their services but it also needs to be in local languages using local channels and then we also found the awareness of gender and M&E documentation varied quite widely across the countries and in some of the cash transfers were given exclusively to women some had much less understanding that women were being affected differently by COVID-19 from men and also the M&E documentation varied and some countries did really well in doing surveys and follow-ups some that was a bit lacking so I think I would add on like a final recommendation to the list of recommendations that I shared with you before which is if you're going to be doing cash transfers it's really important to consider inclusivity quite systematically across the cash transfers I'm not sure how much of that you got because I think the I got a message saying my internet was a bit unstable during that so I do apologize I would like to go now to to ask a couple of questions from people who were involved in the implementation of those cash transfers so well unfortunately Zoe's dropped off again such as the way when we're dealing with internet in 2022 so thanks for bearing with us but luckily I have the set of questions for me and exactly what Zoe was saying we're very lucky to have individuals that have implemented these cash transfers on the ground and can give us some real hands-on experience on what has happened in regards to the implementation of these cash transfers and how they went about it and answering that critical question as well so I'd like to welcome to the floor Miss Thuy An from UN Women and the question that we have for you today Thuy An is you managed to implement cash transfers with multiple risks in 2021 COVID-19, typhoons, flood there's a lot going on in Vietnam it is fair to say is it still donor led and what is needed to make this more government driven and ex auntie in the future so Thuy over to you for your answer and thanks so much thank you Catherine and thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to share our work under the eco-funded FBF project in Vietnam and on behalf of the consortium in Vietnam I would like to share with you some of our experience in implementing the cash transfer activity with the multiple risks in Vietnam so in 2021 why we are implementing the FBF for drought funded by the eco in the Kamau province the COVID-19 pandemic occurred and it really exacerbate the negative impact on life of the vulnerable people in the community in Kamau additionally it also caused the serious effect to our project implementation and at the time it was not possible to implement some of the project activity but luckily that eco was flexible to respond to the emerging shock and allow partners to re-paritize our project activity so we have conducted the need assessment to inform our desire on intervention to ensure that the support that we was going to do would meet the need of the vulnerable household but also to complement the government response regarding the COVID so at the time the government of Vietnam was introduced I mean after the COVID-19 breakout the government of Vietnam introduced a social assistant package through a cash transfer for the people affected by the COVID so the government scheme targeted the poor household I mean as one of the findings that Joy has mentioned that the poor household that in the official list of the commune poor household and the workers in the workers in the formal sector that lost the job for at least three months the workers doing the informal jobs but only in six specific types of jobs such as waste picker street vendor motorbike taxi driver lottery ticket seller on the trees so like very specific like occupation like jobs in the informal jobs and our assessment and consultation with the local community and local authority in Taiwan have found that the government cash transfer scheme have missed out some groups who would have the same level of vulnerability and also have the same negative impact as the group that the government supported for example like the group of the near poor household the group of the people that working or doing the informal jobs but not in the six jobs listed by the government because I mean we found that the six specific types of jobs are listed under the government scheme is more relevant at the at the urban setting but not in the in the in the like rural area area so that's come away with work and this group of people they did not receive any support in majority of them are women migrant and ethnic minority people so based on our findings we our cash transfer activity was designed to complement the government scheme by horizontally expanded the assistance so we target our program our cash transfer activity targeted the household who just live up from the poverty so they was not in the list of the government the near poor the informal workers who are not in the government list and lost their job due to the covid and those that income and livelihood are affected by the drought as well so for that we have able to support like more than 800 households in Kamau and to meet their basic needs due to the affected by the covid and the drought and regarding the the early action by the government at the at the moment in vietnam it can be said that the government system has not that ready for the early action both from the disaster management management side and from the social protection side during the implementation of our fbf funding fbf project funded by the echo in vietnam we have worked closely with the local government in two provinces and supported them in integration of the early action into the disaster management planning and implementation at the local level however we also found some challenges some of them have been mentioned by other speakers for example like the early action was implemented in some cases such as the catch up the cat support to for the people to buy rope for how strengthening before the typhoon in Kamau in 1918 or the action to I mean before the drought season to prevent the bushfire in zhalai however it has not been institutionalized in the dm system but that are depending on the view or the wills of the leaders the second challenges is a limited budget from the government for the dm which constrained the budget allocation for early action and we also found that with a newly established provincial dr fund it could be a potential funding sources for early action however at the moment the mechanism for early for funding early action has not been integrated into the funding criteria of the dr funding of the dr fund and also the limited coordination between the dm and the social protection agencies so that is some of the some of the experience that um when we implemented the the fbf the early action early warning early action project in vietnam and also the catch on for for the kovit that was great we end to hear about the experience in the philippines the experience in the vietnam sorry and we'd like to switch now and hear about the experience in the philippines and so i mean the philippines is often held up as an example of really good progress with shock responsive social protection and and i think we certainly found that the philippines had systems in place that were ready to be used when kovid struck and so how can we build on that to make a system that is actually more anticipatory and ex ante so lots of the examples we've seen around the world of shock responsive social protection in relation to kovid was it was all still arranged after the the main impact of the shock was part of us trying to figure out how to respond to it what could we do to make the systems actually be more anticipatory and ex ante okay um thank you zoe um i hope i'm coming in clearly um but before i respond to your question let me just give a brief background also about the bang samaro region because some of our participants here may not be very familiar with it so in the bang samaro region which is predominantly muslim and they are a minority here in the country um communities are affected by recurring displacement due to ongoing armed conflict clan feuds and natural disasters um this primarily impacts over a million people annually bang samaro families who are forced to flee because of conflict become even more vulnerable with occurrence of natural disasters many are repeatedly displaced and have no regular access to basic social services physical and legal protection and natural disasters put more people's lives at risk um to ensure that poor and vulnerable families are given the protection and assistance they need um the ministry of social services and development of the bang samaro autonomous region in muslim india now or msd barm has strengthened its regular programming and implementation of its disaster risk reduction and emergency assistance program this includes the provision of welfare goods assistance for individuals in crisis situations um primarily for hospitalization and medicines burial or even fire victims um we've also been providing water sanitation and hygiene and cash based interventions as well as humanitarian transfers of distress individuals um very recently um let me just focus on uh zoe's question let me focus on the anticipatory action of the anticipatory action program of the ministry where we are targeting to provide at least 10,000 families uh with multi-purpose cash assistance under our new us program um there's a local term which is which basically translates to paganda is preparation and the cash assistance may be used in anticipation and preparation for potential disasters which translates to paganda you know before the actual disaster strikes or it may be used as part of the recovery package or pagbabali once the id piece the internally displaced families return to their places of origin or settles in new areas this is fully funded under the bang samaro government's 2022 budget i think this is an update from the last time we spoke zoe um anyway the purpose of this program is to minimize the risk and mitigate the effects of disasters and address the pressing needs during the crisis the program also aims to support families in their recovery from the disaster or displacement last month march 2022 the ministry commenced the distribution of cash transfers as part of the anticipatory action or the provision of immediate assistance ahead of a disaster or crisis to mitigate the impact of shocks beneficiaries of the anticipatory action cash transfers were able to collect their cash grants from a third party financial service provider or a cash payout center um specifically we utilize the spawn shops as uh or that are being used as remittance centers ordinarily but we use them as a cash payout center the program was piloted in six municipalities in magindana in the barm with 7448 beneficiaries in an area that experiences recurring displacement of civilian communities due to armed conflict or flooding this pilot program was funded by unicef and fao under the joint program on the sustainable development goals on lead no one behind the jps rsp or the joint program shock responsive social protection addresses the risk and vulnerabilities that the bong samoro people especially the poorest both vulnerable and marginalized face in times of natural and human induced disasters that perpetuate the cycle of poverty the jp srsp enhances barms existing social protection systems to better target and deliver assistance before and immediately after a crisis becomes a full-blown disaster the jps rsp focused on three key interventions that include mainstreaming risk informed shock responsive social protection as part of the uh long-term bong samoro development plan building the capacity of barms institutions to analyze and monitor both natural and human induced risk and improve synergy and lastly um the last one is being implemented by the by msc improving the poverty registry system to include risk and hazard vulnerability assessments predictive analytics inclusive targeting and effective monitoring the learnings from the pilot program on the anticipatory action cash distribution shall inform the development and fine tuning of the ministry's guidelines for the paganda and pagbabelic program where msd shall provide assistance in the form of cash or vouchers as part of the anticipatory action or preparation for the disaster and as part of the early recovery package as displaced families return to their uh places of origin or settles in new areas um i hope that answers your questions oi uh thank you perfect thank you very much indeed um we're a little bit over on time so i'm going to uh very speedily hand over to kathryn who is going to take us through the questions and answers it's been great to see some questions come coming in so over to you kathryn thanks so much so yeah we've got a range of great questions and thanks team for for putting them into the q and a chat to allow us to go a little bit deeper into to what anticipatory action and shock responsive social protection and cash transfers that's a sentence and a half mean for our our space at the moment so i'm going to jump straight into it because of time and hopefully we can answer one or two just want to add the the kind of pretense that we will be answering these questions in a report as well afterwards if we can't reach to them um today so um i might invite emma to the floor i've got a question for you as well um from our colleagues at uni one was that privatization of public goods such as provision of social protection is undesirable for social progress however it seems this is the way to go for proponents of anticipatory action isn't this a contradiction what is the role for the state and private sectors such as insurance companies emma over to you thanks kathryn i think that's a really interesting question it's actually not one i've come up against before i think the first thing to say is that i don't think that early action is um kind of inherently is pro or anti privatization at all i think definitely it means engagement for the private sector because for some of the financing instruments that we want might want to use for anticipatory approaches you know we need to look at things like insurance which is done by the private sector and and they have all the kind of operational history on it but then they need to work with humanitarian organizations with governments so that we can adjust these um approaches to be more you know in service of people rather than necessarily the market so i don't think that um i wouldn't say that anticipatory action requires privatization of government functions at all but it does require that kind of that insurance or that private sector engagement and i think that there's really positive examples of this um already emerging i mean in the asian region also in africa with things like the arc insurance um the arc insurance policies where governments you know sovereign governments can take out an insurance policy and but the only thing is that i think for anticipatory action and linked anticipatory action such shock responses social protection mechanisms to to work what we really need is a layered approach to financing and there is no one size fits all or one sort of financial or funding solution to to fit them all we risks are layered they vary enormously in in severity and scope and and frequency and many countries as particularly african countries are experiencing several different kinds of risks of different intensity at different times so we need risk financing that responds to that complexity and is layered and and is layered accordingly so you know we do want governments to be able to have um within the constraints of pfm to have the capacity to to you know to fund their social protection schemes to make them shock responsive and to fund early action and but humanitarian or cso organizations um will still need to retain a risk capacity to take anticipatory action um either for smaller crises um or for complex crises where we need everybody on board essentially and the private sector is um you know i think sometimes there's a reluctance on the humanitarian side to engage in the private sector because we see it sort of as famous but actually the private sector is really involved in the government in the economy of a country and is probably a bigger contributor to gup and it has stronger links with the government so we all have there is a space for everybody within this space and a responsibility and also um a need a need for everybody to have some sort of capacity to respond and i think the private sector or private financial institutions offer part of the solution for that not all of the solution but certainly part of it particularly we're looking when we're looking at those big crises um that are beyond any sort of um existing national coping capacity hopefully that gets somewhere down through that question thanks but you Catherine that's perfect Emma thank you so much i also love that you touched upon kind of the humanitarian development nexus in some way and brought in the the private sector into that i think that was really well woven in to kind of conceptualize that answer so thank you so much Emma really appreciate your time and zoe i'm going to call you back to the floor i'm sorry we thought we you're going to have a break but i'm going to call you back um beyond so we've got one question that is beyond changing some anti-corruption laws what are other specific changes to public financial management are required to deliver anticipatory action through social protection systems so over to you zoe um okay so i i would give another i mean i think um another good example of where we have to pay attention to this issue of the flow of funds is when using when using insurance for example so the Philippines recently with support from the world bank bought parametric catastrophe insurance for typhoon i think i don't know this um that well but i i read the evaluation report from it so it's just this this issue really of you need to tie up how you're getting the money in to a to a country with how you're going to get it to flow through government systems and get it out to people at the end and sometimes we're good at doing the the beginning and the end of the chain but we forget to do the bits in the middle and i think the um example of the Philippines um buying insurance it was part of a world bank project supporting parametric catastrophe insurance was that the money was paid to the national government but the plan was for it to be and the two bits didn't connect very well that they needed to do more work on the public instrument to get it to flow through the government system so that would be um i i think it's a case for any situation where you're trying to access money for shock responsive social protection or anticipatory actions that you need to think how do you get it through the system thanks so much for reinforcing that point Zoe and confirming we heard the whole entire answer so thanks so much perfect yeah i know persevering through it all so thank you so much Zoe for that um with the time now not on our side i'm going to move quickly to dr yanti to answer one question hopefully in a couple of minutes i think it might take longer but hopefully you can um provide us with a few kind of recommendations to this so dr yanti if you don't mind taking the floor to answer this question i'm sure that the azean have reviewed the admiral work plan previously i i still see the n d mo in the countries have no proper trigger point to define their anticipatory action how does the azean secretariat plan to reinforce this so dr yanti if you don't mind providing a few words to that question that would be great i think to uh to answer this or respond to this uh quickly uh we will have more elaboration on the trigger points which we discussed in the development of the azean framework or anticipatory action there are of course in between uh with during the consultative process that there is question on you know what kind of trigger points you would like to decide uh but of course it's important to know uh at the azean level uh these frameworks give guidance on implementation at the regional level with some consideration of uh uh you know implementation at the at the national level however you know uh this is understanding that there are more coordination needed at the national level for example to decide on this uh you know definition or decision on this trigger point i think that's to answer this question quickly thank you thank you so much dr yanti really appreciated and yeah exactly the national level that's where all of this will kind of happen and where we hopefully can get that coordination and moving forward to get these systems more sustainable at that country level as we move forward into the future so thank you dr yanti for your intervention there um we are now reaching the end of our webinar and many thanks to all who participated and provided interesting insights and so what we have learned and and really gathering and kind of meditating on that but also critically looking at where are we going and where do we need to go and i feel like this conversation allowed us to have those two hats on really taking a back this is where we've come from but where we also need to go as a community and before i pass the floor to dr yanti to close us off with some final reflections i want to flag a few things for questions that have not had time to address as i was mentioning before we will make sure to address them in our webinar report of this session that will be sent out to everyone that registered for the webinar as indicated earlier the presentation has been recorded the recording together with the related resources that you've seen popping up into the chat feed that the zoom team has very kindly managed to do systematically will be available soon and the link in the chat box it should be also appearing now so you can link into that and you can see all the goodies that have been discussed today as well as the the recorded link that will be hosted there and please let us know if you've got any thoughts or feedback on this webinar following also the link in the chat we're always warmly welcome feedback on these processes and how we can do better so don't be shy and and manage to to provide some recommendations there but once again i want to thank our speakers our panelists zoe as well for joining us today and really going through this important topic and i look forward to doing more of these sessions with this community in the future now i'd like to invite dr rianti to provide us with some closing reflection reflections for the webinar today thank you dr rianti and over to you thank you very much allow me to give some of the reflection that will be relevant for our implement follow-up implementation one thing that we noted here is an issue on the coherence we are trying to ensure that the asian key framework as an agreement on disaster management as a declaration and on uh and regional implementation framework on social protection are some of the guiding higher guiding documents to ensure coherence of this work we notice on the issue of terminology here you know how do you define anticipatory action what are the trigger points how like this is also something that we have noted and also discussed in development of our incoming framework on the third issue on strategic and sustainable financing i have shown uh some uh or some example or elaboration on asian disaster is finance and insurance there are we noted there are major consideration of our shock responsive social protection and anticipatory action for consideration of uh in the development of asian disaster is finance and insurance this is where a cdm will take this forward we noted some of the recommendation that were highlighted uh on the results of the study indeed in the uh incoming anticipatory framework on anticipatory action we we are considering some of this recommendation as part of our action planning thank you very much on the examples given on the cash transfer you know how do we strengthen capacity for asian how do we ensure inclusivity is ensured some examples of social assistant package affected by kofi the challenge is that you know lessons from this various member state how do we then scale this up at the regional level so that we can implement this regional framework on anticipatory action so to close asian secretariat would like to thank the acdm chair acdm feist chair and members joining today particularly to the coaches of working group pnm for their leadership in the engagement on the works on the development of asian guidelines on disaster is concept social protection to increase resilience and their continued engagement on anticipatory action which lead to the development of the asian framework on anticipatory action and disaster management which we plan to be launched at the asian partners event at the sidelines of gpdr are in may 2022 in bali so our sincere thanks to power up who has engaged with acdm throughout this journey supported by dj echo so your support as part of asian u n uh joint strategic plan of action in disaster management will greatly support the implementation of the art more work program 2021 2025 we also would like to thank asia pacific technical working group on anticipatory action will your cooperation and broader supports to asian in advancing this the agenda on the rsp and uh anticipatory action so finally we are thankful uh of the for the workshop participants today it is an honor that asian can share our work to the public uh as part of our mission to be the global leader in disaster management by 2025 so have a good evening everyone