Advances in weather forecasting have revolutionized the delivery of humanitarian aid. Thanks to early-warning weather systems, aid organizations can now deliver aid more urgently following the onset of a disaster. As of last year, forecast-based anticipatory action (FbAA) had become a cornerstone of programming for major institutions including World Food Programme (WFP), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
Is receiving cash earlier always better? Not necessarily. Cash could provide the same benefits regardless of when it is delivered. Shifting payments earlier could simply move those benefits forward a few months, but households who receive the transfer later end up just as well off once they receive theirs. Alternatively, it may be better to receive transfers later if the need for assistance increases as the crisis unfolds, or if markets collapse immediately after a flood, making it difficult to use the money effectively right away.
The central question, which the authors tackle in this paper, is whether early action puts households on a fundamentally better trajectory.
To study this question, the authors compare FbAA (forecast-based anticipatory action, or cash delivered within days of flooding) to traditional post-disaster assistance using a randomized controlled trial across villages in Bangladesh and Nepal. They randomly assign participating villages to either an FbAA treatment arm or a standard post-flood assistance group. Both groups experience the same flood and receive a cash transfer of the same value. The only difference is the timing of the transfer in relation to the flood event: the FbAA group receives transfers within days of the flood, while the standard group receives assistance 1-1.5 months later.
The authors use surveys to measure the effects of FbAA relative to post-flood assistance. They survey households concerning their food security and psychological wellbeing at three key times: first, in the “short-run”, a few weeks after the FbAA group received their aid, but before the post-flood group received theirs; second, in the “medium run”, several weeks after the post-flood group received their transfer, well after the flood peak, and finally, in the “long run”, six months after the post-flood group received its transfer in Nepal, and 1.5 months after the post-flood group received their transfer in Bangladesh.
The authors document three key findings:
- In the short run, soon after the flood—a period of acute stress for households—FbAA significantly improves food security in both countries. Households assigned to FbAA have a food consumption score that is 1.1 points (2.4%) higher, and are 4.2 percentage points more likely to reach “acceptable” food security levels, driven by more households eating meat. Additionally, the Reduced Coping Strategies Index, a proxy for household food insecurity, decreases significantly for the FbAA group in both countries by approximately 1.1 points (6.8%). The authors also find that FbAA boosts psychosocial well-being in both countries, with depression symptoms falling and life satisfaction improving, both at significant levels. Finally, the authors observe reduced borrowing and increased savings in Bangladesh, which may help explain the improvements in food security and mental health.
- In the medium run, after the crisis has passed and the post-flood assistance group has received their transfer, both groups have similar food security and coping strategy scores. This suggests that the FbAA group’s receipt of earlier funds improves their food security and psychosocial well-being sooner, and leads to similar outcomes over time.
- In the long run, as households recover and return to their stable equilibrium, the authors see no differences between the FbAA group and the post-flood assistance group. Taken together, these results show that receiving early FbAA support leads to overall gains: the total benefits for the FbAA group—combining short-run, medium-run, and long-run outcomes—are higher. Households in the FbAA group experience positive benefits of the cash transfers early after the floods, but continue maintaining equal or better outcomes than the post-flood group, suggesting an overall superior trajectory in the FbAA group.
Building on these results, the authors address an important limitation. By the medium run, both groups have received transfers. While outcomes appear similar for the FbAA and post-flood groups in the medium and long-run, this convergence could reflect two possibilities: either both groups are benefiting equally from the cash transfers, or the effects of FbAA have faded while post-flood transfers have little impact. The authors address this limitation in Bangladesh by including a third group that remains untreated in the medium run, allowing them to test whether the effects of FbAA persist over time:
- The FbAA group has significantly higher food security scores than the pure control group in the medium run, suggesting the benefits of FbAA persist for at least two months after the flood.
This research demonstrates that acting on forecasts to deliver humanitarian cash generates substantial and enduring welfare gains. As climate change intensifies extreme weather events, these findings provide justification for humanitarian organizations to expand forecast-based systems globally.