From Disaster Response to Anticipation: Act Before the Storm Hits

In November 2013, Typhoon Haiyan struck the Philippines with winds over 300 km/h, one of the most powerful cyclones ever. Over 6,300 people died, millions were affected, and communities were devastated. Haiyan revealed that no country, no matter how capable, can face such a disaster alone.

In September 2016, ASEAN Leaders pledged ‘One ASEAN, One Response’ to unify efforts for faster, scaled, and unified disaster response. The declaration made the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response central and recognized the AHA Center as the main regional coordinator.

As ASEAN marks the tenth anniversary of that declaration this year, the question is no longer simply whether the model of collective response has worked. The more important question is: what must One ASEAN, One Response become for the decade ahead? Our answer is simple: ASEAN must move from responding to disasters to anticipating them.

A landscape that no longer stands still

Disaster management has long assumed hazards occur separately: floods, droughts, cyclones. However, risks in South-East Asia are becoming more interconnected. A drought jeopardizes food security. A flood disrupts supply chains. A cyclone affects health, schools, energy and livelihoods at once. Climate change worsens some hazards and breeds others. Disasters often trigger chain reactions impacting societies and economies.

This lesson from the United Nations University’s Interconnected Disaster Risks 2025 report shows many crises are symptoms of deeper interconnected systems, and that superficial responses won’t suffice.

South-East Asia faces many risks, with disaster costs extending beyond infrastructure and the economy to include children missing school, families losing livelihoods, displacement, and erased development gains.

The burden is rarely shared equally, as women, children, older persons, people with disabilities, and vulnerable groups often face the worst consequences with fewer resources to recover. The international humanitarian system faces immense pressure as the Global Humanitarian Overview 2026 estimates that hundreds of millions will need aid, but resources are limited. The 2026 appeal requests US$33 billion for 135 million people, with US$23 billion urgent for 87 million.

This changes the equation. When resources are constrained, and risks are growing, waiting for disasters to happen before acting is no longer a viable strategy.

The first responder is usually already there

Another lesson should shape the next decade: localization is not simply a principle. It is a practical necessity. When disaster strikes, communities and authorities respond first. They know which roads flood first, which neighborhoods are vulnerable, which families need help, and which communication channels are trusted.

Regional and international actors have vital roles to play, but they should reinforce local capacity rather than inadvertently displace it.

Regional and international actors have vital roles to play, but they should reinforce local capacity rather than inadvertently displace it. ASEAN has built an institutional architecture, with the AHA Center under the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER), transforming regional solidarity into operational capability. The next step is to make this capability more anticipatory by identifying risks earlier, deploying resources sooner, connecting cross-border data and empowering local actors to act on warning signals.

The ASEAN–UN Joint Strategic Plan of Action on Disaster Management 2026–2030 offers an opportunity to emphasize risk assessment, early warning, anticipatory action, localization, climate adaptation and innovative financing.

What artificial intelligence (AI) can and cannot do

Technology can help make this shift possible. AI is promising for processing large data sources like weather, satellite imagery, disaster patterns, infrastructure, and population exposure, enhancing forecasting, risk mapping and situational awareness. AI helps identify missed patterns, supports stress-testing evacuation plans and supply chains, and translates warnings to reach diverse audiences effectively. But we should be clear about what AI cannot do.

The real test of an AI disaster system shouldn’t be the disaster itself.

AI is not a substitute for human judgment. A prediction is not a decision. A model is not reality. And an algorithm cannot be allowed to become the unquestioned authority in a crisis. The danger is particularly acute when data are incomplete or biased. A system may identify some communities as being at lower risk because they are poorly represented in the underlying data. Those communities can then become invisible precisely when resources are being allocated. That is why the principle I would apply to AI in disaster management is straightforward: Use AI. Doubt AI. Verify AI. Cross-validate AI.

The goal isn’t to slow technology but to make it trustworthy. AI should provide local responders with better information faster, while humans retain responsibility for key decisions. Systems must be tested against real outcomes, governed transparently and continuously evaluated before large-scale deployment. The real test of an AI disaster system shouldn’t be the disaster itself.

From early warning to early action

Early warning is vital, but only action saves lives. Anticipatory action bridges the gap between knowing a disaster is coming and acting beforehand. ASEAN’s Framework on Anticipatory Action offers a foundation, highlighting pre-agreed triggers, forecast-based decisions and pre-arranged financing for when thresholds are met.

Consider the difference: the traditional model responds after flooding by assessing damage, launching appeals, mobilizing funds, and starting aid. An anticipatory model uses forecasts to activate triggers early, with funds ready, evacuation and protection underway, and supplies pre-positioned, providing aid before floods peak.

The complexity is shifted upstream, before the emergency. That is the real promise of anticipatory action: making the response simpler at the precise moment when complexity is most dangerous.

The evidence for early warning is compelling. Countries with limited multi-hazard early warning coverage have disaster-related mortality ratios nearly six times higher than those with substantial to comprehensive coverage. As of 2024, according to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 108 countries reported having multi-hazard early warning systems, more than twice the number reported in 2015. The lesson is not simply that ASEAN should warn faster. It is that ASEAN should act earlier.

When forecasts indicate drought conditions, farmers should receive support before crops fail. When flood projections identify communities at risk, evacuation and protection measures should begin before people are displaced. When a cyclone is approaching, essential supplies should already be where they will be needed. Early warning without early action is information without impact.

The next frontier: a regional anticipatory system

The regional anticipatory system is where ASEAN’s strength can grow. The region doesn’t need every country to create identical systems; it needs interoperable systems. Imagine a regional setup where satellite data, forecasts, exposure, infrastructure information and local knowledge combine to identify emerging risks. Picture regional stockpiles based on predictive risk, not past convenience.

Imagine protocols that let governments request aid before disasters peak, not after. Financing mechanisms could release resources when risk thresholds are crossed. Local communities should help design protection systems. This would fundamentally evolve One ASEAN, One Response from reactive to proactive. The goal is to anticipate as one, not just respond.

ASEAN has lessons to share with the world

ASEAN’s experience in regional coordination, disaster governance, humanitarian logistics, anticipatory action and community resilience is a global contribution, not just a regional asset. It shows sovereignty and solidarity can coexist, with countries maintaining responsibility while pooling capabilities for better outcomes.

That experience matters beyond South-East Asia. As the international community focuses on disaster risk reduction and the Sendai Framework, ASEAN can show how regional cooperation works in practice, not just in declarations.

Leadership needs more than institutions and declarations. 

Leadership needs more than institutions and declarations. It demands ongoing investment in preparedness during calm periods, cross-border data sharing, resource and credit sharing among institutions, and international trust in local actors with responsibility and resources.

Most importantly, it requires us to change our political instincts. Too often, preparedness is funded after a tragedy rather than before. We should reverse that logic. The most successful disaster is the one whose worst consequences never occur because we acted early enough.

The decade ahead

Ten years ago, ASEAN committed to One ASEAN, One Response after painful lessons. The past decade focused on strengthening collective response mechanisms. The next decade’s goal is to develop a region that detects risks early, acts swiftly, mobilizes resources proactively and prioritizes communities. One ASEAN, One Response must evolve into One ASEAN, One Anticipation.

Storms will come, but the question is whether we wait for them. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres stressed regarding emerging technologies, our future relies on listening, adapting, and cooperating. Disaster resilience demands the same: listen to communities at risk, adapt institutions to interconnected hazards and cooperate across borders before crises arise. The next decade should focus on preventing suffering rather than just response speed after storms.