Resilience against the extreme weather: Scaling Anticipatory Action in Southeast Asia Region

Anticipatory action is mostly interpreted as responding to impending disasters based on forecast or risk information. The time window between the generation of forecast information and the actual occurrence of a hazard provides opportunities for organisations or individuals to take short-term preparedness actions to mitigate the impact of disasters. In the context of the Southeast Asia region, studies indicate strong evidence and confidence that the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events are on the rise and climate change has become a threat multiplier to the risk of weather-related disasters. Anticipatory action has emerged as a promising approach to enhance resilience and shift the traditional approach in responding to disasters. Despite the shift and advances in weather forecasting, many predicted disasters continue to result in a significant number of casualties. Hence, this research aims to explore 1) In what ways does anticipatory action scale up in Southeast Asia? 2) To what extent do the barriers to successful implementation vary across different countries and contexts? This research utilises a mixed approach, incorporating scientific literature, policy documents, and in-depth interviews with disaster management professionals, to examine the scaling of anticipatory action at national and regional levels. Qualitative content analysis is used to scrutinize the extent of legal frameworks governing disaster risk reduction and management. Concurrently, an abductive analysis method is employed for an inductive examination of emergent categories based on the expert interview, while also seeking to align these findings with established scaling frameworks. This study uncovers three distinct ways through which anticipatory action is being scaled in the Southeast Asia region. First, anticipatory action initiatives have grown through replication, expansion, and spontaneous diffusion, originating primarily from community-level pilot projects led by non-state actors. Second, the scaling of anticipatory action has been done through policy adoption, as exemplified by recent legislative developments in the Philippines and also the adoption of the regional framework on anticipatory action by 10 ASEAN Countries. Third, in countries where anticipatory action has not yet been incorporated into the legal framework, the expansion may commence by strategically aligning it with existing programs that share similar objectives. While scaling anticipatory action is evident in the region, knowledge disparity between state and non-state actors creates a fundamental barrier that impedes the expansion and replication of anticipatory action in the majority of ASEAN countries. Therefore, it is reflected in the existing disaster risk governance which impedes the conduct of anticipatory action. Yet, it may be overcome through targeted exercises, knowledge sharing, and capacity building for seamless integration into the disaster risk management continuum.