WFP’s updated evidence base on anticipatory action 2025: lessons from 16 studies across 12 countries

In 2020, the World Food Programme (WFP) commissioned a review of all the evidence it could find on anticipatory action. This exercise found 25 published and unpublished studies from various agencies. Since then, the implementation of anticipatory action, and research into its impacts, have both accelerated: between 2021 and 2024, WFP alone produced 24 pieces of evidence from 12 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean.

To capture and share the lessons, WFP recently published its updated evidence base on anticipatory action: a systematic review and synthesis of 16 of these studies. Combined, these provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of anticipatory action, as well as lessons about common methodological challenges and recommendations for generating further evidence.

A diverse body of evidence

The 16 studies were selected based on the quantitative focus, availability at the time of writing, and quality standards. Half were generated in slow-onset hazard contexts (drought), and half were from fast-onset contexts (tropical cyclones and floods). The methodological robustness of the studies varied, from randomized control trials (RCTs) to quasi-experimental designs and simple endline comparisons.

Consistent positive effects on food security

The most consistent and robust finding is that anticipatory action interventions, particularly cash transfers delivered ahead of forecast hazards, have a positive effect on food consumption, helping households to eat more and better food than they otherwise would. Eight of the ten studies that reported on the share of households with “acceptable” food consumption scores (FCS) – a standardized and widely used metric – found a positive effect, with nine out of ten showing an increase in average FCS values (see figure below). Moreover, anticipatory action interventions were associated with a shift in households from “poor” or “borderline” food consumption into better categories, indicating improved dietary quality and quantity.

Reduced reliance on negative coping strategies

When households experience the impacts of severe shocks, such as droughts or floods, they are often forced to make difficult decisions: whether to eat smaller portions, or less frequently, or not at all, or whether adults forego a meal so that children have something to eat. WFP’s evidence synthesis shows that anticipatory action that includes early warnings and cash transfers reduces people’s need to rely on such behaviours, as measured through the reduced Coping Strategies Index, with 11 out of 14 studies confirming this effect (see figure below).

Evidence on other outcomes, such as the use of livelihood coping strategies, was more limited and requires further research. Only a handful of studies measured effects on indicators such as resilience capacity scores or food expenditure shares. This is a reminder that common assessment frameworks and standardized indicators are highly valuable and desirable. However, teams on the ground must balance the costs and effort of such research against the implementation of anticipatory action and other competing priorities.

Lessons for better evidence on anticipatory action

Synthesizing the 16 studies identified several methodological challenges that future efforts to generate evidence should address. These are hardly surprising, nor specific to anticipatory action, but need consideration:

1. Selection bias. Unless deliberately controlled for (as in an RCT), a control group is not always an unbiased counterfactual that truly represents what would have happened without the intervention; this is because there may be many confounding factors.
2. The need to disentangle interventions. Separating the effects of cash transfers from early warning messages has not been done systematically; however, it would be useful to, for example, learn more about the effectiveness of early warnings and how they can be improved.
3. Timing of data collection. Given that anticipatory action is typically designed to be a short-term measure, data collection needs careful timing to capture results when they have fully materialized but before they fade from people’s memories.

Despite these challenges, the consistency of positive results across the studies, which had varying levels of methodological robustness, strengthens confidence in the overall finding that anticipatory action delivers meaningful benefits.

Homework for future research

To address these issues and improve the generation of future evidence, the team behind this synthesis recommend the following:

• Harmonize indicators and data collection methods across studies to enable more meaningful comparisons.
• Provide detailed contextual information, including cash transfer amounts, the timing of interventions, and the hazard’s severity and evolution over time.
• Collect and report baseline data to better account for differences between treatment and control groups.
• Be transparent about potential sources of bias and methodological limitations.