For most of its history, humanitarian aid has waited for a disaster and then responded. The logic was simple and expensive: money arrived after the flood, the drought or the storm, when needs were greatest and costs were highest. A growing movement is trying to change that by releasing funds before the event, on the basis of forecasts rather than confirmed catastrophe.
The idea is called anticipatory action, and it has moved from theory to practice in a number of countries.
How anticipatory action works
Agencies agree in advance on triggers, thresholds and plans. When a forecast crosses a threshold, money is released automatically and pre-agreed activities begin, such as cash transfers, livestock support or reinforcing defences. The decision is made before the crisis peaks, which is when it can still change the outcome.
Why early money is more effective
A household that receives cash before a flood can move its possessions, buy food and avoid selling assets. The same household after the flood may need far more support to recover. Evidence from pilot programmes has found that anticipatory action reaches people faster and costs less than waiting, though the evidence base is still growing.
The obstacles
Donors are accountable for how money is spent, and paying before an event means some money will be released for crises that do not fully materialise. That is a hard argument to make to a finance ministry or a parliament. The system also depends on reliable forecasts, which are better for some hazards than others.
Where it has been used
Anticipatory action has been applied to cyclones, floods and droughts in several regions, often through pooled funds that release money on pre-agreed triggers. The programmes are modest in scale relative to total humanitarian spending, and they have demonstrated the model can work when the trigger is clear and the response is prepared.
Why it is not a substitute for response
Some crises are not forecastable, and some needs appear after an event regardless of preparation. Anticipatory action complements traditional response rather than replacing it. Its value lies in reducing the peak of need, not in eliminating it.
The financing question
Scaling anticipatory action requires donors to accept uncertainty and to pay early. It also requires agencies to have systems ready to act on a trigger, which means planning and pre-positioning before the money arrives. Both are organisational changes as much as financial ones.
What would make it standard
Clearer triggers, reliable forecasts, pre-agreed financing and better evaluation would all help. So would a change in how success is measured, since a crisis that was prevented leaves no dramatic evidence. That measurement problem is one of the reasons the approach advances slowly.
The next checkpoints
The indicators worth following are the share of humanitarian funding released before crises and the number of countries with functioning trigger systems. Those figures will show whether anticipation is becoming routine or remaining a pilot.
The evidence question
Anticipatory action is difficult to evaluate, because the counterfactual is a crisis that did not happen in the way forecast. Evaluators compare outcomes against forecasts and against similar past events, which is informative and imperfect. Better evaluation would strengthen the case for scaling, and it requires funding that is often directed at delivery instead.
The local dimension
Anticipatory action works best where local organisations are ready to act on a trigger, because they know who is vulnerable and how to reach them. Building that readiness takes time and funding, and it is often the least resourced part of the system. A trigger that releases money to an unprepared area produces less than one that releases money to partners who already have plans.
The climate link
Climate change is making some hazards more frequent and intense, which raises the value of anticipation. Forecasts of drought, flood and heat are improving, and the same forecasts that support early warning can support early funding. The two agendas are converging, and the practical barrier remains the willingness to pay before an event.
This report draws on the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the Anticipation Hub.
Image: Governor of the Kursk Oblast Alexey Smirnov · CC0 · via Wikimedia Commons.