Forecasting hazards, averting disasters

23

6  The evidence base for 

forecast-based early action

Investment in FbA is expected to bring about several 

positive outcomes, and significant attention has been 

paid to measuring the costs and benefits involved. In 

particular, studies have looked at outcomes related to:

 

• an earlier response and reduced response time, so that 

aid gets to people faster, averting suffering and helping 

to prevent more severe impacts;

 

• a decrease in the cost of humanitarian response through 

greater prepositioning and early procurement; and

 

• better-quality programme design through pre-planning 

with more preventative measures, and potential co-

benefits in non-crisis times.

These outcomes would suggest that investing early through 

FbA is more cost-effective than waiting to provide a late 

response. However, it would be wrong to assume that FbA 

would be more cost-effective under all circumstances, and 

there are many possible scenarios where FbA may not be 

cost-effective. These are described in greater detail below. 

Evidence on the costs and benefits of anticipatory 

action is very limited, and a meta-analysis of evaluations 

of these initiatives was beyond the scope of this 

report. Box 4 summarises key studies that have tried 

to quantify the costs and benefits of an early response. 

Since empirical evidence around the impact of earlier 

responses is scarce, most studies have relied on modelling 

and estimations to assess the impact of alternative 

approaches. Protocols could usefully build in damage 

and loss assessment, not only in areas where early action 

was taken but also where it was not, in order to compare 

the differential outcomes. However, the benefits of early 

action can extend well beyond reducing loss and damage. 

By reducing damaging coping strategies, early action 

can have long-term effects on malnutrition, education 

and health that cannot easily be captured in a short 

timeframe. Furthermore, the impacts of crisis are multi-

dimensional, and teasing out attribution of outcomes 

to specific activities can be difficult. It is therefore 

critical that any assessments of the costs and benefits of 

early action through FbA use a mix of qualitative and 

quantitative approaches to the full range of potential 

impacts, including less quantifiable effects such as social 

outcomes, as well as investigating the effectiveness of 

different activities for different hazards.

The costs and benefits of anticipatory action will 

differ depending on whether the event is slow- or 

rapid-onset, and the degree of fragility/conflict. For 

example, early action for a rapid-onset event can mean 

the difference between life and death, and therefore in 

this regard the benefits of early action can be obvious 

and have a high value. Slow-onset events give ample 

opportunity to respond months earlier, and hence offer 

numerous benefits, although these opportunities are 

often missed due to higher uncertainties associated with 

the forecasts. The costs and benefits of early action in 

fragile contexts can be hard to measure, as early action 

can be hampered by issues outside of a humanitarian 

agency’s control, such as access to affected populations. 

However, according to the Global Humanitarian 

Assistance Report (Development Initiatives, 2017) the 

confluence of climate and conflict dominates the majority 

of crises, and therefore it is critical to understand the 

relative costs and benefits of early action. The literature 

is most limited with respect to examining early action in 

fragile contexts.