Categories
The impacts of humanitarian funding cuts on anticipatory action
Anticipatory action has seen significant growth in recent years, empowering more organizations to act ahead of potential crises before they unfold. During 2025, however, the humanitarian sector has witnessed major cuts to its funding. As part of this sector, these cuts also threaten the financial sustainability of anticipatory action initiatives.
A survey by the Anticipation Hub sheds some light on the challenges these cuts are posing for organizations that implement anticipatory action. This blog delves into the insights gathered, focusing on the types of organizations involved, their funding sources, the impacts of this financial strain, and the strategic adjustments being made to ensure continued engagement in anticipatory action.
The survey, conducted between 18 June and 1 September 2025, was promoted among the Anticipation Hub’s partners via email, and more widely on social media. In total, 26 organizations, representing different areas of focus (e.g., global, local) and regions, responded.
Of these, a significant number of responses (62 per cent) were from international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and local or national NGOs (Figure 1). Other responses came from members of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement, the United Nations (UN), the private sector and governments. A significant number of respondents (63 per cent) came from organizations operating at the country or regional level (Figure 2).
Given this relatively small sample size, the results presented in this article are indicative only.
Funding sources for anticipatory action
The survey revealed that in 2025, the commonest sources of funding for anticipatory action are government entities (e.g., Germany, the UK), followed by intergovernmental organizations (e.g., European Union, UN-affiliated entities) and other grant-giving NGO entities (e.g., Start Network, Welthungerhilfe Anticipatory Action Facility). Foundations, philanthropic organizations and individual donations also play a role, though these are less common.
Financial health of organizations working on anticipatory action
Many organizations are facing financial strains and/or cash flow challenges, but are managing to continue operations for now. Larger international organizations reported more stable or manageable financial health, while smaller and/or regional organizations reported greater challenges. A few organizations reported critical financial situations, in which they face severe liquidity issues or potential closure.
Operational impact of funding cuts
Funding cuts in the last 12 months have generally affected operational capacity, with impacts that include reductions in services, staffing, project implementation, coordination and learning capacity; some illustrative quotes are shared below.
Several organizations, especially those facing severe liquidity issues, have had to freeze operations or cancel upcoming agreements, leading to significant setbacks in their ability to continue or scale up work on anticipatory action. Other organizations have experienced significant setbacks in their ability to gather and analyse data due to reduced funding, which is directly affecting their anticipatory action activities. Other concerns include the stalling of advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and competition for funding.
The programmatic/operational impacts have been indirect so far – no projects cancelled or suspended. But the cuts have generally impacted our staffing levels to a limited degree [and] travel is being limited.
Planned scale-down of certain country offices involved in the coordination of anticipatory action; reduced ability to invest in collective learning efforts; anticipated reduction in partners’ capacity to implement anticipatory action; currently no confirmed ‘build’ funding for 2026 onwards; ability to provide same level of fuel funding is at risk.
Our ability to do the necessary research to get our project fully up to capacity has been destroyed.
Less able to maintain our community of linguists, on which the organizations’ language-support services depend.
We are seeing AI-enabled advances in advanced anticipatory action modelling grind to a halt due to the [limited] availability of funding. Additionally, we are seeing organizations with little to no experience in advanced data analytics and AI competing for scarce funding opportunities.
Geographic impacts
The geographic impacts are difficult to assess fully from the responses received, but it seems the effects of funding cuts are being felt globally. Examples from countries in central, western and southern Africa indicate that the funding cuts have led to impacts including office closures and/or staff reductions. This is in line with broader assessments, which suggest that the impact of US funding cuts will mostly affect countries in these regions (e.g., Angola, Chad, Somalia), as the US finances a larger share of humanitarian efforts there. However, the results of our survey must be treated with caution, given the small sample size.
Strategic adjustments
Most organizations are already actively seeking alternative funding sources for anticipatory action, for example engaging more strongly with non-traditional donors. However, they are not yet implementing specific contingency plans.
Many organizations are increasing their reliance on local and other partners, or adjusting operational priorities in response to funding cuts. A few, particularly UN agencies, are prioritizing operational adjustments and restructuring, with some downsizing programmes or consolidating efforts to remain viable.
What is needed now?
To address these funding challenges, the organizations that responded to the survey are advocating for a number of changes, such as multi-year funding commitments, improved donor communication, and better collaboration with other organizations to share resources. Several organizations emphasized the need for greater advocacy support to improving the overall funding landscape.
How can organizations adjust to these funding cuts?
While limited in scope, this survey indicates that there is an urgent need for more stable and more flexible funding to safeguard the future of anticipatory action programmes. This is not a new suggestion, but the recent funding cuts across the wider humanitarian sector have underscored this.
Larger international organizations appear better equipped to manage these financial challenges, due to their broader funding models. Smaller and locally focused organizations, which tend to have limited reserves, are facing severe difficulties, however, with the impacts – the suspension of anticipatory action programmes, staff layoffs and, in some cases, the cessation of activities – already being seen. And respondents across the humanitarian sector are concerned about future developments, calling for long-term funding commitments from donors, improved communication regarding the funding that is available, and better collaboration between organizations to maximize resources.
Ultimately, to support the growth and sustainability of anticipatory action, it will be necessary for donors to prioritize more flexible funding to allow organizations to reprioritize activities as needed, and for organizations implementing this approach to coordinate their efforts more closely to make full use of whatever funding is available in the coming years.
This blog was written by Dr Nikolas Scherer from the Anticipation Hub. Discussions around this theme will continue at the 13th Global Dialogue Platform in December; read the concept note for the event here.