Abstract
Anticipatory action (AA) aims to reduce the humanitarian impacts of forecast-based hazards by acting before disasters fully unfold. Effective AA relies on three key elements: pre-agreed forecast-based triggers, pre-agreed activities to be implemented, and pre-agreed financing that can be released when triggers are met. Current evidence suggests that AA has potential to mitigate the negative consequences of drought on individuals, households, and communities, but generating rigorous, causal evidence remains challenging due to short windows between trigger activation and activity implementation.
To overcome this challenge and generate more evidence on AA for droughts, OCHA is collaborating with ISDC, WFP and FAO to jointly develop an impact evaluation in Chad. Following the activation of drought triggers in April and May 2026, ISDC is implementing a cluster-randomized controlled trial to estimate the impacts of coordinated AA implemented by FAO and WFP.
The primary objective is to causally estimate whether and by how much coordinated AA in response to drought triggers helps households prepare for and better to withstand drought. Specifically, the evaluation examines: (1) the added value of combining unconditional cash transfers (WFP) with seeds (FAO), compared to cash transfers alone; (2) whether providing the same amount of cash as an early lump sum before the planting season leads to better outcomes compared to staggering transfers across the agricultural season; and (3) whether these impacts persist over time and strengthen household resilience to droughts.
The evaluation will be implemented as a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) across three drought-prone provinces: Bahr El-Gazal, Batha, and Kanem. Villages are sequentially randomized twice. For the first evaluation question, 85 villages were randomized to receive either WFP cash transfers only (43 villages) or combined WFP cash transfers and FAO seed distributions (42 villages), with randomization stratified by department (WFP Cash versus WFP Cash + FAO Seeds). For the second evaluation question, 79 villages (after some villages were merged for implementation reasons) were further randomized to compare two cash transfer modalities: an Early Lump Sum, in which households receive two cash transfers before planting, and Staggered Cash, in which households receive one transfer before the planting season and a second transfer before the harvest (Early Lump Sum versus Staggered Cash). The total amount of cash transferred remains the same across both arms. This design enables the evaluation to separately identify the effects of combining agricultural and financial assistance and the timing of cash transfers across the agricultural season.
By embedding a rigorous experimental design within an operational humanitarian response, this study will generate timely evidence on how the composition and timing of AA influence food security, agricultural production, coping strategies, mental health, and household resilience. The findings will inform the design of future drought AA programs and contribute to the growing global evidence base on effective humanitarian preparedness and early action.