Disaster-prone communities are being given financial support ahead of predicted cyclones through anticipatory financing mechanisms. Broadening mitigation options has significantly influenced how households approach evacuation and livelihood protection.

The Philippines is the world’s most disaster-prone country according to the World Risk Index and has held this ranking for 17 consecutive years. In 2024 alone, 9.6 million Filipinos were displaced – more than half due to cyclones. With climate change intensifying risks, providing timely and effective support through advance assessments and funded early action plans is now a vital component of national disaster management strategy.

When disasters come in clusters

In late 2024, the Philippines experienced an unprecedented climate crisis. Six cyclones – Trami, Kong-rey, Yinxing, Toraji, Usagi, and Man-yi – hit in rapid succession, with some regions struck more than three times in just 30 days. Scientists attribute this ‘clustering’ to La Niña, a climate pattern characterised by cooler-than-average sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean, amplified by climate change, with wind speeds up to 36km/h stronger than historical averages.

Over 9.6 million people were affected, and hundreds of thousands were displaced repeatedly.^[1] Already vulnerable communities in coastal, low-lying and hazard-prone areas saw livelihoods collapse under cycles of displacement. Evacuation centres, overcrowded and under-resourced, struggled to provide clean water, sanitation, and healthcare. Families relocated far from jobs, schools and essential services, experiencing heightened economic strain and social isolation.

Disasters erode dignity, agency and resilience for all, but they hit hardest those already vulnerable: women, children, the elderly, indigenous peoples and people with disabilities. Displacement is not only physical; it also undermines safety and fragile process toward stability. As climate hazards strike more frequently and intensely, at-risk populations face increasingly dangerous patterns of displacement that deepen poverty, weaken resilience and widen the socio-economic gap.

What is anticipatory financing?

Anticipatory financing (AF) falls under the umbrella of disaster risk financing and provides the ‘fuel’ for Anticipatory Action (AA). Anticipatory action is defined as “acting ahead of predicted hazardous events to prevent or reduce acute humanitarian impacts before they fully unfold.^[2] Forecast Based Financing (FBF) is one of the most prominent and effective modalities of AF, demonstrating how financing tied to forecast can trigger timely, life-saving action. FBF is the “release of pre-agreed finance for pre-agreed activities to prevent or mitigate the impact of an imminent hazardous event or shock when forecast triggers are reached.”

The rise of AF is driven by two trends: the growing frequency of climate-related disasters and the fragmented nature of multilateral funding. At its core, AF ensures families receive support before a disaster strikes. It provides cash or resources days ahead, enabling preparedness choices such as stockpiling, securing shelters, protecting assets or evacuating early. Unlike traditional humanitarian funding, which responds to loss, AF seeks to proactively reduce suffering, speed recovery, and enhance resilience. Most importantly, it aims to uphold dignity and expand choice.

Borrowing practices from parametric insurance and financial markets, AF relies on risk modeling and time-bound data to support assessments and decision-making – approaches significantly different from grant-based humanitarian systems. FBF, as noted, one of the most prominent forms of AF, relies heavily on sourcing, developing, and analysing data to determine the imminent onset of a hazard, the scope and size of funding required, and who should receive it. Yet despite its potential, of the USD 76 billion spent on crisis finance in 2022, only 2% was prearranged and just 1.4% reached lower income countries..^[3]

The Philippines’ example demonstrates the effectiveness of AA, showing how its impact can be further strengthened when participatory approaches, multi-stakeholder planning and distributed decision-making are integrated.

A turning point in the Philippines

Super Typhoon Haiyan in 2013 marked a turning point in disaster response – it claimed over 6,300 lives, displaced 4 million people, and caused USD 12.9 billion in damages across infrastructure, the social sector and livelihoods. This tragedy exposed the limits of reactive disaster response and spurred the rise of AA.

Following early piloting by the Philippine and German Red Cross, in 2019, Oxfam launched the Building Resilient, Adaptive, and Disaster-Ready Communities or B-READY programme. This linked community-defined forecast triggers to digital financial services, enabling families to receive cash days before a cyclone’s landfall to stockpile essentials, reinforce shelters, protect assets or evacuate safely.^[4] B-READY demonstrated the effectiveness of AA in reducing disaster impacts, while also showing that embedding local disaster knowledge into early warning systems and activation thresholds – through participatory risk mapping, recognition of indigenous hazard knowledge and community-defined triggers – can further strengthen its outcomes. Independent evaluations showed that this integration significantly improved the timeliness and appropriateness of early action, with households reporting reduced losses and faster recovery after cyclones. In 2021, the UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) introduced an AA framework to support preparedness for potential Category 4-5 typhoons.

In 2023, Start Network launched Start Ready, a risk-financing mechanism that provides rapid, pre-arranged funding for predictable and recurring humanitarian crises, particularly those driven by climate change.^[5] By 2024, agencies such as Oxfam, FAO, and Start Network had scaled AA during multiple cyclone clusters.

A family story: from loss to resilience

On Christmas Eve 2019, Super Typhoon Rai was forecast to hit Eastern Samar, a province facing the Pacific. Cristina, a 50-year-old mother, received B-READY anticipatory cash three days before landfall. She secured food and medicine, then evacuated with her children on her own terms, rather than being forced to respond reactively. Cristina explained:

“The cash support was a big help to us. We were able to immediately buy food and medicines as one of us was sick. Before the typhoon arrived, we had to move quickly to a safe place.”

Her family endured days of rain and flooding in an emergency shelter with enough supplies to remain independent of delayed aid. B-READY automatically disburses cash through mobile wallets or prepaid cards when thresholds are met. Families can then secure food, medicine, or shelter materials, as well as harvest crops or protect livelihood assets – actions that not only safeguard survival during the crisis but also speed up recovery afterwards.

Cristina’s story illustrates the essence of AF: timely, flexible support that gives families agency, enables faster recovery, and prevents deeper losses.

Positive coping mechanisms

During the 2024 cyclone cluster, AF proved transformative. In Cagayan and Catanduanes provinces, ahead of Typhoons Trami and Man-yi, around 21,250 households received cash assistance of USD 56-60 each, amounting to USD 205,300 in total. At-risk households – prioritised based on vulnerability criteria such as poverty levels, high exposure to hazards and residence in geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas with limited access to social services – used funds to buy food, medicine and fuel before markets closed and prices spiked, they harvested crops, secured boats, and evacuated up to 48 hours in advance.

The positive impact of AF lay not only in the timing of assistance but in the power of choice it provided. Unlike top-down relief, anticipatory cash trusted families to decide for themselves how to spend funds. Funds delivered through digital wallets or local remittance centres also arrived without the stress, queues or stigma of traditional aid.

Planning was participatory, involving a wide range of stakeholder-local governments, volunteers, grassroots groups, local traders, financial service providers, NGOs and UN agencies. They co-designed contingency plans and delivery mechanisms so communities knew exactly when and how help would arrive. Local governments provided risk maps and evacuation plans; NGOs and UN agencies managed forecasts and facilitated transfers; and financial service providers ensured cash reached households safely and on time. Forecast triggers were co-designed with communities: fisherfolk identified early signs of storm surges, farmers set rainfall thresholds, and women’s groups mapped food supply chains and critical facilities. Finally, affected households provided feedback to strengthen AA systems after each activation.

Benefits and challenges during multiple cyclones

The Philippines offers key lessons for global AA practice, including the following benefits:

Reduction in financial losses and protection of assets. Even in a multiple-cyclone context, AF ensured households had secure access to food, medical supplies and shelter – the critical drivers of displacement. Multipurpose cash, transferred even as late as 24 hours before landfall, reduced financial losses for 99% of affected families compared to past experiences. This prevented harmful coping strategies such as selling assets or taking on debt, both of which often drive longer-term displacement.^[6] Protecting livelihood assets such as fishing boats and farming tools also accelerated recovery, enabling households to resume livelihoods quickly without waiting for relief aid.

Cost-effectiveness is striking. In 2024, the Philippine government spent an average of USD 115 per person on cyclone relief, compared to just USD 10 per person through anticipatory financing from aid actors.^[7] AF also helped prevent price spikes, stabilising supply chains by distributing demand before and after disasters.

Greater choice in evacuation. AF also broadened evacuation choices and reduced forced displacement. Early cash allowed families to relocate to preferred destinations or reinforce shelters to safeguard possessions.

Nonetheless, notable challenges remain:

Limits to local capacity. Local capacity is limited, particularly at municipal and local (barangay) levels, leaving AA reliant on humanitarian organisations and UN agencies, which constrains autonomous local action. Targeted training for local government units (LGUs) in multi-hazard analysis, AA protocols and flexible planning is essential to ensure community-led responses become the norm when national systems are stretched.

Confusion over AA models. Coordination is also fragmented. The growing number of AA actors using varying models confuses communities when triggers differ between agencies. For example, some use forecast-based models, while others use ‘impact-based’ models, which focus on predicting what the impacts of hazards will be. Shared protocols and open data, whether based on indicators or donor requirements, are vital to reduce frustration and build trust, especially when anticipated triggers fail to provide expected support during compounding crises.

The need for partnerships. AA works best when LGUs, NGOs and UN agencies work in close partnership. Collaboration enables timely decisions and targeted aid delivery. Vulnerability-based targeting standards that consider gender, disability and ethnicity ensure more equitable outreach. Localised triggers and pre-disaster risk assessments make programming more flexible and targeted. However, the lack of formal AA policies within national disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) legislation has created unclear roles between LGUs, civil society and humanitarian organisations, especially during overlapping crises. Although AA aligns with the Philippine DRRM Act, for example, its absence as a legal mandate limits consistency in implementation.

The importance of flexibility. Finally, there is a risk that AF becomes overly complex, technical and over-engineered as it is designed around models and procedures rather than the realities of vulnerable communities. The Philippines faces layered hazards beyond cyclones. Vulnerable households face compounded, everyday risks that demand adaptable and flexible financial instruments. No single mechanism can address all needs, but harmonised collaboration, clearer protocols and distributed responsibilities can ensure households are supported across diverse risks.

Towards a more people-centered AA system

Over 35% of crises globally are modellable, and yet only USD 1 in USD 5000 of crisis finance goes to low-income countries in the form of pre-arranged finance.[8] Processes are fragmented, and recent aid cuts threaten the very architecture required for AF. Currently, AF relies heavily on international donors, underscoring the need to integrate it within national government budgets.

In the Philippines, scaling AA requires two essentials: flexible, pre-arranged financing – made available locally through an advance transparent delivery mechanism – and impact-based triggers co-designed with communities.

Collaboratively developed triggers. Triggers must go beyond narrow metrics like wind speed, which fail to capture cascading risks such as floods, landslides and prolonged rains. Limited triggers also overlook evolving vulnerabilities – for example, households already weakened by food insecurity or recurring floods – resulting in missed opportunities to provide timely support.

A people-centered AA system would mean shifting to multi-hazard, impact-based triggers that combine diverse data points into the trigger framework, including rainfall forecasts, flood risk, geohazard susceptibility (such as exposure to landslides or earthquakes) and community-level vulnerability. When these triggers are developed collaboratively using historical and real-time data, they enable timely cash transfers, increasing households’ agency.

Joint planning and knowledge sharing. Preparedness must also be collaborative. Institutionalising NGO–LGU planning hubs for regular joint planning and knowledge-sharing builds ownership and effectiveness. Expanding community-based communication platforms and deploying municipal-level forecasters also strengthens local response capacity, and builds trust, resilience and responsiveness at the local level.

Anticipatory financing is not only about speed or savings. It is about giving people real choices –whether to strengthen their homes, protect their livelihoods or move safely. When displacement is inevitable, AF can help transform it from a desperate flight into a planned, dignified decision.

The Philippine experience shows that no single model fits all contexts, but it offers a pathway to building a more people-centered AA system: one that is timely, flexible and locally driven. Such a system protects dignity, empowers families and transforms survival into resilience. With the right support – delivered at the right time and in ways that expand choice – communities can withstand crises and recover stronger.

Oenone Chadburn
Independent Aid Consultant and Partnership Brokers Association Associate
oenone.chadburn@gmail.com

linkedin.com/in/oenone-c-a4797613/

Maria Theresa Niña Espinola-Abogado
Anticipatory Action Lead, Oxfam Pilipinas
MariaTheresa.Abogado@oxfam.org.ph

linkedin.com/mariatheresaniñaespinolaabogado

^[1] United Nations OCHA, Philippines: Six Tropical Cyclones Humanitarian Snapshot

^[2] Anticipation Hub, What is Anticipatory Action?

^[3] Centre for Disaster Protection (2025) High-level Panel on Closing the Crisis Protection Gap. Crisis Protection 2.0: Future-Proofing Our World. A Roadmap to Close the Crisis Protection Gap Through Pre-arranged Finance

^[4] Oxfam Pilipinas (2021) ‘Humanitarian groups say pre-disaster cash transfers for communities work better than post-typhoon relief’

^[5] Start Network, Start Ready: The Philippines Activations

^[6] Start Network (2025) Learning Paper on Anticipatory Action for Multiple Cyclones

^[7] See endnote 6

[8] See endnote 3