The Gap Between Building Anticipatory Action Frameworks and Their Activation: A global study on Anticipatory Action Readiness
Background and rationale
Over the past decade, Anticipatory Action (AA) has expanded rapidly in scale, geographic reach, and institutional uptake. According to the Anticipation Hub 2024 annual report1, AA reached over 17 million people in 2024 through 121 activations, supported by financing worth 110.7 million US dollars. There were 154 active frameworks in 48 countries, with 121 activations in 2024, a ratio of 79% of Anticipatory Action Frameworks (AAF) that were activated during the year. However, the 2024 regional mapping of AA in Asia-Pacific (AP) 2 found that only 38% had been triggered in recent years, with many not sustained beyond individual project lifespans and therefore unable to be activated when needed In practice, this means that many frameworks were not triggered during the year. Despite significant investment in AA over recent years, a critical implementation gap persists between the development of frameworks and their effective activation.
Objectives
The study conducted by CARE International and led by CARE Climate Justice Centre seeks to explore the current state of AAF readiness. Specifically, the objectives are to explore the status of frameworks worldwide; analyse the key enablers and barriers for maintenance, activation, and sustainability; and identify good practices and key recommendations to maintain the operational readiness of AAF.
Methodology
A mixed-methods approach was applied, combining qualitative and quantitative data. Primary data was collected through an online survey (January–February 2026) answered by 24 informants providing data on 31 AAF developed in Africa, Asia-Pacific, and the Americas, followed by 14 semi-structured interviews with 19 key informants from INGOs, NGOs, the Red Cross Red Crescent (RCRC) Movement, and United Nations (UN) agencies. Secondary data included the Anticipation Hub 2024 global report and database, and the AP TWG 2024 regional mapping. Data was analysed through thematic analysis using an analytical framework built from themes identified during the document review and from the data analysis itself.
KEY FINDINGS
Limited activation
Survey data found that 52% of the 31 frameworks analysed had never been triggered since validation. When compared with secondary data sources, this finding appears broadly consistent with the relatively low activation ratio reported in 2024 by the AP mapping exercise with only 38% of the 137 developed or under-development AAF that have been activated since the AAF validation, while 62% have not been triggered.
This indicates that a substantial proportion of frameworks may remain inactive over extended periods. Survey informants identify mainly the following causes for non-activation: signal suitability (triggers, thresholds), prearranged, rapidly accessible finance at the point of trigger, institutional approval processes and limitations in operational capacity. Notably, 12 out of 15 activations occurred within the first year following framework finalisation, and 4 were activated before completion — suggesting activation momentum is closely tied to the build phase, its associated funding availability, especially if AAF is linked to a short-term project timeline focusing on building rather than sustained operational readiness.
Trigger bottlenecks and their implications for AA maintenance
Trigger-related issues are among the primary barriers to activation. Cases from the Philippines and Ethiopia illustrate two distinct challenges: triggers that fail to accurately reflect hazard realities, and institutional barriers where national authorities decline to validate activations when forecasts conflict with government data. Additional constraints include limited access to localised forecasting data, reliance on global datasets that national institutions cannot independently sustain, and donor requirements for scientifically validated triggers that might exclude community-based knowledge. These trigger-related challenges have direct implications for maintaining the readiness of AAF. If triggers are not reliable, validated, or consistently monitored, AAF may remain dormant even when resources, stocks, and trained personnel are in place.
Lack of shared definitions and inconsistent maintenance
A consistent finding across all data sources is that the AA sector lacks shared definitions for key concepts such as ‘readiness,’ ‘maintenance,’ and ‘active’ or ‘inactive’ framework, making it difficult to systematically plan, budget, and assess operational readiness across actors and contexts. This ambiguity contributes to a structural gap between framework completion and effective operationalisation. Compounding this, the proliferation of parallel AAF within the same country places additional strain on already limited coordination and maintenance capacities — a challenge that stronger government ownership could help address, though national institutional involvement in day-to-day AA operations remains limited in most contexts.
Financing mechanisms create gaps between AAF development, readiness and activation
Most AAF rely on short-term, project-based financing that prioritises framework development (“build” funding) over the sustained resources needed for readiness and activation (“fuel” funding). While some models identify pre-arranged activation mechanisms, few provide continuous funding for maintenance activities such as training, trigger monitoring, and stock management. The most comprehensive model — the RCRC’s DREF for Anticipatory Action — treats AA as an ongoing process rather than a time-bound project, though it still caps the number of activations. Across all models, the chronic imbalance between build and fuel funding reinforces a linear “build, activate, end” approach, leaving operational readiness poorly resourced once the initial project cycle concludes
Key practices and recommendations
The study puts forward four interconnected recommendations identified from practices and key informants’ interviews:
1. Flexible, context-adapted trigger systems: Move toward simplified, locally manageable trigger models that integrate both global and community-based data sources, with continuous monitoring and revision embedded as institutional practice throughout the full framework lifecycle.
2. Harmonisation and DRM integration: Reduce fragmentation by aligning AAF approaches, formats, and triggers across actors; embed AA within national Disaster Risk Management structures and legislative frameworks to strengthen governance, legitimacy, and long-term sustainability.
3. From linear to cyclical readiness models: Establish shared definitions for readiness and operational status; institutionalise after-action reviews; and ensure maintenance activities — including simulation exercises, stock management, and trigger monitoring — are explicitly planned, financed, and assigned to national and local actors as recurring programme components.
4. Transforming financing mechanisms: Shift from short-term project-based funding toward longer-term, multi-component models that explicitly cover the full build–maintenance–activation cycle. Progressively localise fuel funding within national institutional budgets and explore complementary mechanisms such as pooled financing, index-based insurance, and organisational early action funds.