Lessons from Turkmenistan’s earthquake simulation

In April 2025, Turkmenistan – one of Central Asia’s most earthquake-prone countries – tested its ability to deliver emergency cash assistance during a simulated magnitude 7.0 earthquake in Baklan welayat. The simulation, coordinated by UNICEF, NORCAP, and national agencies, aimed to assess how shock-responsive social protection (SRSP) could be integrated into the country’s national emergency response system. The findings are presented in the new report, titled “National simulation on earthquake response through social protection in Turkmenistan”.

Figure 1: Earthquake risk in Turkmenistan.
Source: UNICEF, Government of Turkmenistan, and NORCAP.

The objective

The working group was tasked with designing a cash-based emergency response system that does not yet exist. Participants, representing key government ministries, financial institutions, humanitarian actors, and local authorities, were assigned roles based on their real-life mandates and area of expertise. They had to assess whether emergency cash aid is feasible, identify immediate actions during emergencies, evaluate banking infrastructure (ATMs, banking services), and anticipate potential disruptions.

The problems: what went wrong?

Despite many strengths, several issues emerged during simulations:

• Unclear activation authority: It was not clear who was in charge of triggering emergency cash support. This caused delays, though the Ministry of Finance holds final authority.
• Banks unprepared: There were no formal protocols ensuring bank readiness. Coordination with banks was informal.
• Weak local coordination and data sharing: National-level coordination was strong, but coordination with local authorities and real-time data sharing lagged behind.
• Difficulties in decision-making under pressure: Officials struggled to balance speed of assistance roll-out with its coverage. Choosing between expanding help to existing social system beneficiaries or reaching new ones proved challenging in the absence of clear priorities and guidance.
• Manual cash distribution challenges: Vulnerable people without bank cards or smartphones risked being excluded due to unclear manual cash delivery channels.
• Targeting and transparency issues: There was no clear and transparent system for identifying who gets cash assistance. Damage-based and vulnerability-based criteria were recommended for beneficiary identification. Complaints systems, especially for those without digital access, need improvement.

Recommendations

To strengthen future emergency cash delivery, the following steps have been recommended to the government institutions: 

• Set clear rules for triggering and scaling support, including how to calculate transfer amounts;
• Expand bank card coverage through proactive public information campaigns;
• Formalize the role of banks in crisis response and to ensure their effective functioning and electronic transfer handling;
• Identify all manual and electronic cash channels in advance, by maintaining accurate population data;
• Create a unified national database to organize different datasets across agencies;
• Develop a flexible methodology to ensure that aid reaches the right people.