From its applied experience and research, FEWER arrived at the assessment that effective early warning requires the use of a range of data sources and analytical methods, including (i) local analysis (i.e. analysis of events and perceptions not covered by the media), (ii) monitoring of newswire reports (or "events data") and (iii) structural data (such as economic and developmental indicators of country performance).

The objective of FAST is early recognition of impending or potential crisis situations in order to act early and prevent violent conflict. More specifically, FAST aims at enhancing political decision makers' ability to identify critical developments in a timely manner so that coherent political strategies can be formulated to either prevent or limit destructive effects of violent conflicts or identify windows of opportunity for peacebuilding. Only by involving policy makers in the process of formulating policy options and case scenarios can we fine-tune early warning by adapting to client needs, build trust in the analysis and recommendations, influence overall policy planning, and also function as a pressure mechanism (Schmeidl and Adelman, 1998). Close interaction with decision-makers through meetings and consultations may ultimately minimize what frequently has been called the warning-response gap. Still, it is important to separate analysis from the decision-making process in order to prepare policy options that are as objective as possible (Gurr, 1996; Adelman, 1998). Thus, as FAST is hosted by a non governmental organization, it enjoys a level of political independence which in-house early warning mechanisms generally lack. In addition, FAST does not focus on advocating specific policy options but simply provides independent analysis, case scenarios, and policy options. With this emphasis, FAST keeps in line with the general functions of early warning (among others see Schmeidl, 2001): • Collection of information • Analysis of information (attaching meaning, setting into context) • Formulation of case scenarios • Formulation of response options • Communicating findings to decision-makers.

STEP 1: CONFLICT MAPPING STEP 2: ASSESS INDICATORS OF CONFLICT RISK • Structural Risk • Social Tension and Fragmentation • Viability of State STEP 3: POPULATION CONFLICT RISK ASSESSMENT STEP 4: ASSESS POPULATIONS CAPACITY TO MANAGE CONFLICT • Post-Conflict Peace-building • Capacity to Contain Conflict • Capacity to Manage Tension STEP 5: DETERMINE POPULATIONS ANTICIPATED VULNERABILITY TO VIOLENCE STEP 6: IDENTIFY AND ASSESS RESPONSE OPTIONS STEP 7: DEVELOP CONFLICT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS