Anticipatory Humanitarian Action in the MENA Region: From Reactive Crisis Response to Proactive Resilience

Introduction: The Silent Crisis of Reactive Funding

Every year, when floods sweep across Sudan or drought tightens its grip on Somalia, the humanitarian system scrambles. Emergency appeals are launched, aid convoys are assembled, and billions of dollars are pledged — after the damage is done. In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), this reactive model dominates nearly 100% of humanitarian financing. Yet the region’s hydro-meteorological hazards have nearly tripled over the past four decades, and the gap between needs and available resources continues to widen.

This is the silent crisis of reactive funding. Despite clear evidence that acting before a disaster strikes saves both lives and money, less than 1% of global humanitarian spending is pre-arranged for early action. Anticipatory Humanitarian Action (AHA) — often operationalised through Forecast-Based Financing (FbF) — offers a paradigm shift: use the window between a reliable forecast and the impact to disburse funds, preposition supplies, and trigger community-level interventions. But the MENA region, home to roughly 40 million climate-affected people, has only 16 active anticipatory action frameworks. Why such a stark disconnect?

[IMAGE: Map of MENA with climate hazard hotspots (floods, drought, cyclones) and overlay of active anticipatory action framework locations.]

Context: The Climate Toll on MENA

The numbers are stark. According to the World Meteorological Organization, climate-related disasters in the MENA region have nearly tripled from an average of 45 per year in the 1980s to over 130 per year in the 2010s. Heatwaves, flash floods, sandstorms, and cyclones are becoming more frequent and intense. Over 40 million people are directly affected annually, with water scarcity reaching critical levels — MENA has the highest per-capita water stress globally.

Yet climate finance flows to the region remain disproportionately low. While Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia receive billions in adaptation funding, MENA is consistently underrepresented in multilateral climate funds. The paradox is economic as much as it is moral. Rigorous evaluations from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and other agencies show that every dollar invested in anticipatory action generates between $3 and $5 in avoided post-disaster relief costs. For a region where budgets are already strained by conflict and displacement, this return on investment is not just compelling — it is essential.

“We are essentially paying a high premium for waiting,” says a senior official from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) who works on the Anticipation Hub. “The evidence from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and the Philippines is unequivocal. Early action works. The MENA region cannot afford to remain a late adopter.”

[IMAGE: Infographic showing trend of disaster frequency in MENA (1980–2020) vs climate finance received.]

Current Landscape: Frameworks, Activations, and Investments

As of mid-2025, the Anticipation Hub — the global knowledge platform hosted by the IFRC — records 16 active anticipatory action frameworks across the MENA region. These frameworks are spread across seven countries and cover hazards including drought, flood, El Niño/La Niña episodes, and multi-hazard triggers. Combined, they have been activated 20 times, channelling over $28 million in pre-agreed funding to reach more than 2 million people.

The stakeholder ecosystem is diverse but concentrated. The Red Cross and Red Crescent (RCRC) Movement leads the majority of frameworks, often in partnership with national meteorological services, the World Food Programme (WFP), World Vision International (WVI), and the International Organization for Migration (IOM). National governments have begun to participate, and research institutions contribute to forecast modelling and trigger development.

Two key events have shaped the current momentum. The 2nd MENA Dialogue Platform on Anticipatory Humanitarian Action, held in July 2025 in Amman, brought together over 150 practitioners, donors, and government representatives to share lessons and coordinate scaling. Earlier, in May 2024, the Anticipation Hub released its global overview showing that while the MENA region has made progress, it still lags far behind East Africa and Southeast Asia in both framework density and funding volume.

[IMAGE: Bar chart comparing number of frameworks (active) vs activations per country, colored by hazard type.]

Country Deep Dive: Successes and Gaps

A closer look at country-level data reveals a fragmented and often puzzling landscape. Some of the most climate-vulnerable nations have zero frameworks, while others with chronic instability have built surprisingly robust systems.

Somalia stands out as the regional leader: 8 active frameworks and 12 activations, primarily for drought, El Niño/La Niña, and flood. The country’s recurrent crises — combined with a dense network of humanitarian actors — have created a testing ground for anticipatory action. Each activation has refined the triggers and delivery mechanisms, making Somalia a case study in iterative learning, even amid ongoing armed conflict.

Yemen, facing a complex humanitarian emergency, has 3 frameworks and 2 activations. A notable milestone came in 2023 when a $3.1 million anticipatory flood activation reached 162,000 people across vulnerable districts. More recently, in August 2025, the Yemen Red Crescent acted on a flood forecast, distributing non-food items and cash assistance ahead of heavy rains — demonstrating that anticipatory action can function even in severely constrained environments.

Sudan has 2 frameworks but only 1 activation, a drought response in 2024. However, the current civil war has disrupted implementation. Pre-positioning supplies and coordinating with local authorities have become extremely difficult, raising questions about how to design anticipatory frameworks in active conflict zones.

Palestine presents an instructive contrast: zero active frameworks, yet 2 documented activations in 2023 and 2024. These were ad-hoc responses triggered by flood forecasts, but without a pre-arranged funding mechanism or standard operating procedures. The result was slower disbursement and lower coverage — a reactive approach disguised as anticipation.

Iraq, Lebanon, and Djibouti each have small-scale frameworks, typically covering a single hazard and limited geographic areas. In Iraq, a flood framework along the Tigris reached roughly 30,000 people in 2024, but scaling remains constrained by weak hydrological forecasting and fragmented institutional ownership.

Perhaps most striking are the zeroes. Morocco, Western Sahara, Syria, and Iran have no recorded anticipatory action frameworks despite significant climate exposure. Iran faces recurrent floods and droughts that affect millions; Syria’s water crisis is deepening; Morocco’s 2023 earthquake overshadowed its growing flood and drought risks. The absence of frameworks in these countries is not due to a lack of need — it reflects political barriers, limited donor engagement, and insufficient investment in national early warning systems.

[IMAGE: Dashboard-style graphic: country cards with framework count, activation count, total funding, people targeted, and hazard icon.]

Barriers to Scale: Why Proactive Resilience Remains Under-Utilised

The gap between proven cost-effectiveness and real-world adoption is not a mystery. It reflects a combination of institutional, financial, and technical barriers.

Funding rigidity is the most immediate obstacle. Most humanitarian budgets are still allocated on a post-disaster basis. Donors have been slow to create the multi-year, flexible funding windows that anticipatory action requires. The $28 million invested in MENA represents less than 0.5% of total humanitarian expenditure in the region over the same period.

Forecast capacity varies widely. While some countries have robust meteorological services (e.g., Morocco, Oman), others — notably conflict-affected nations — lack the data infrastructure to generate reliable short-term forecasts. Trigger development depends on historical data and probability thresholds, which are often unavailable or unreliable.

Coordination complexity also slows progress. Anticipatory action cuts across humanitarian, development, and climate adaptation silos. Ministries of finance, agriculture, water, and disaster management must all be at the table, and their priorities do not always align. In the absence of a national champion, frameworks remain pilot projects rather than institutionalised programmes.

Political will is perhaps the most variable factor. In countries where governments view external humanitarian actors with suspicion, or where sovereignty over disaster response is fiercely guarded, anticipatory frameworks can be perceived as interference. Conversely, where governments have embraced the approach — as in Somalia, where the federal government co-chairs the anticipatory action working group — adoption accelerates.

The Way Forward: From Pilots to Systems

Despite these barriers, the trajectory is cautiously positive. The July 2025 MENA Dialogue Platform concluded with a joint statement calling for a doubling of anticipatory action frameworks by 2027 and a target of $100 million in pre-arranged funding. Several donors — including the German Federal Foreign Office, the European Union’s Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO), and the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office — have signalled increased appetite for multi-year anticipatory funding.

Technological advances are also lowering barriers. Satellite-based rainfall estimates, machine learning models for drought prediction, and mobile money platforms for rapid cash transfers are becoming more accessible. The Anticipation Hub’s global overview notes that the number of countries with at least one anticipatory action framework has grown from 15 in 2020 to 52 in 2025 — and while MENA still trails other regions, its growth rate is accelerating.

For the 40 million climate-affected people in the region, the difference between reactive and anticipatory action is not theoretical. It is the difference between receiving aid weeks after a flood contaminates drinking water, and receiving cash and purification tablets before the waters rise. It is the difference between watching livestock die in a drought, and destocking early while animals still have market value. These are not luxuries — they are rights that the current system too often denies.

Anticipatory Humanitarian Action will not solve every crisis. Conflict, displacement, and economic fragility will continue to shape the MENA humanitarian landscape. But the evidence is clear: proactive resilience is not only more humane — it is more efficient. The question for the next decade is whether the region’s governments, donors, and humanitarian actors will have the courage to move beyond pilot projects and build a system that truly anticipates the future.

This deep dive is part of a series on humanitarian innovation in the MENA region, supported by open-source data from the Anticipation Hub and interviews with practitioners.