The Humanitarian Challenge: Innovation Under Pressure
The global humanitarian system faces mounting challenges as crises grow more frequent and prolonged. While efforts to reform and innovate are ongoing, fundamentally new approaches are rare. Amid this landscape, Anticipatory Action (AA) offers a critical opportunity to shift from purely reactive to proactive humanitarian action. The approach has evolved over the past decade and can now build on a growing body of evaluations and lessons learned reports, a community of diverse stakeholders, and increasing financial commitments.
What is Anticipatory Action?
Anticipatory actions are pre-agreed measures implemented in the window between a hazard warning and its impact. These actions—ranging from distributing water purification tablets before floods to strengthening roofs ahead of hurricanes—do not stop hazards but aim to mitigate their humanitarian impacts. It relies on three foundational elements: pre-agreed trigger mechanisms, a clear set of anticipatory actions, and, crucially, pre-arranged financing. Without all three, the system falls short.
While not all hazards can be predicted, AA is not meant to replace the existing system. Instead, it complements disaster risk reduction (DRR) activities for recurring risks and strengthens reactive humanitarian responses after hazards occur. If AA is well understood and embedded in overarching programming and strategies, it can close gaps in the disaster risk management cycle and save more lives.
The Strategy-Implementation Divide: A Paradigm Shift Takes Time
The AA community has shown strong commitment to advancing the approach, despite the risk of it becoming a buzzword. While the call for evidence is valid, expecting rapid results can be counterproductive. Although AA intuitively “just makes sense” and more roadmaps, feasibility studies as conducted in 2024 for Malteser International, and strategies support advancing the approach, the evidence is simply not rising as steeply. Still, this must not lead to a narrative that AA is too complex, technical, or resource-intensive to implement.
The Divide: Building Systems vs. Fueling Action
Donors’ willingness to fund the development of AA systems—such as creating early warning mechanisms or drafting Anticipatory Action Plans—is commendable. However, this enthusiasm often stops short of fueling these systems when action is triggered.
This divide in financing risks undermining the entire approach. Communities are engaged in designing AA plans, contributing their expertise, but are left unsupported when those plans need activation. An Anticipatory Action Plan without pre-positioned funding and a pre-agreed funding mechanism is like a bicycle without a chain—it looks ready to act but lacks the means to deliver.
This funding gap not only jeopardizes the effectiveness of AA but also risks breaking trust with participating communities. Without the resources to act, AA systems can create false expectations and deepen vulnerabilities when hazards strike.
“An Anticipatory Action Plan without pre-positioned funding and a pre-agreed funding mechanism is like a bicycle without a chain—it looks ready to act but lacks the means to deliver.”
Marie Wagner, Anticipatory Humanitarian Action Advisor at WAHAFA, Welthungerhilfe.
Why Pre-Arranged Financing is Non-Negotiable
Pre-arranged financing is essential for several reasons, and these cannot be overstated in the context of humanitarian action:
- Saving Lives: The time between a forecast hazard and its impact is narrow. Without immediate access to funds, interventions—like evacuations, distributing relief supplies or cash—are delayed. Pre-positioned funding ensures timely action, significantly reducing the impacts of disasters.
- Maintaining Trust with Communities: AA systems are most sustainable if local actors and communities are at the center and in the lead. When funding isn’t pre-arranged, any AA actor risks losing the trust of these communities, damaging relationships and undermining the entire system.
- Mitigating the Risk of False Triggers: One concern with AA is the potential for false triggers—when pre-agreed actions are initiated based on forecasts that do not materialize. While this risk exists, it must be balanced against the proven benefits of AA and follow the “no-regrets” principle.
Building Locally-Led Systems Takes Time and Resources
Developing a community-based, locally-led, and people-centered AA system requires investment. This involves identifying and strengthening existing early warning mechanisms and ensuring local actors have the tools and resources to implement actions.
However, these efforts are wasted if donors hesitate to fund the implementation phase. The reluctance to commit to pre-arranged financing stems from a desire for evidence of impact—yet the very nature of AA makes this challenging to provide, as its success is measured in avoided harm rather than visible results.
From Plans to Action: Closing the Funding Gap in Anticipatory Action
Donors must recognize that funding both the development and implementation of AA is not just complementary—it’s essential. The benefits of AA are evident: At Welthungerhilfe, we have found that AA works best when communities’ local expertise is used as a source of knowledge. For instance, in Zimbabwe, our partner Farmers Community Trust Zimbabwe demonstrated how combining traditional coping mechanisms with anticipatory actions reduced economic losses and strengthened resilience.
For proposal writers, the message is clear:
- Advocate for pre-arranged funding mechanisms and longer-term commitment as a non-negotiable component of AA projects.
- Highlight the risks of underfunding implementation, including the harm to communities and the credibility of AA systems.
- And if all other arguments fall short: Showcase the long-term cost-effectiveness of anticipatory action, emphasizing its potential to reduce the need for costly reactive responses.
Anticipation as the New Norm
Anticipatory Action is not a passing trend; it is a paradigm shift in how humanitarian work is approached. But its success depends on breaking down the divide in donor financing. Supporting the development of AA systems without committing to their implementation risks doing more harm than good, leaving communities unprepared when hazards strike.
To ensure AA reaches its potential, donors must invest in both building the system and fueling the action. This requires long-term commitment, persistence, and an understanding that the ultimate measure of success is not immediate results but the prevention of harm.
By bridging the funding gap, we can embed AA as a standard practice in disaster risk management—one that saves lives, protects communities, and delivers on the promise of a more anticipatory humanitarian system.
