Opinion: Financing Early Warning Systems That Deliver and Endure

Disclaimer: This article was originally published on the Risk-informed Early Action Partnership (REAP) website. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of REAP, the Green Climate Fund (GCF), or its Board.

By Bapon Fakhruddin & Aiko Ward, Green Climate Fund

A milestone that raises harder questions

The rapid rise of early warning systems and anticipatory action within the global climate agenda reflects a clear and justified priority. As climate risks intensify, the ability to anticipate, communicate, and act ahead of hazards has become one of the most cost-effective forms of adaptation. Within this landscape, the Green Climate Fund has emerged as the single largest financier of climate information and early warning systems, committing close to two billion US$ across more than 140 projects in over 100 countries (Independent Evaluation Unit [IEU], 2026).

At first glance, this scale of investment signals strong progress toward the Early Warnings for All (EW4All) ambition of universal coverage by 2027. However, the recent IEU evaluation introduces a more critical perspective. It does not dispute the importance of investments. Rather, it challenges whether the current financing model is producing systems that are coherent, scalable, sustainable, and capable of delivering impact at the point where it matters most.

The evaluation effectively reframes the discussion. The central issue is no longer how much is being invested, but whether those investments are building functioning systems rather than a collection of disconnected components and what other global contributors should learn.

From projects to systems

A consistent finding of the evaluation is that the current portfolio has developed incrementally rather than strategically. Projects have accumulated over time, often without a unifying framework that ensures coherence across the early warning value chain. While individual interventions may be technically sound, the absence of a portfolio-level approach limits their collective effectiveness (IEU, 2026).

This fragmentation becomes particularly problematic when viewed through the lens of system performance. Early warning systems are inherently interdependent and interlinked. Risk knowledge, forecasting, communication, and preparedness must function as a continuous chain. Weakness at any stage reduces the overall effectiveness of the system. The evaluation confirms that gaps in user engagement, last-mile delivery, and operational integration continue to undermine outcomes, even where upstream technical capacity has improved. Scaling investments without aligning them into an integrated system risks creating the appearance of coverage without delivering real protection.

The imbalance across the value chain

The distribution of financing across the early warning value chain further illustrates this challenge. A significant share of current investments is concentrated in upstream components, particularly observations infrastructure. These are essential public goods and form the backbone of any early warning system. However, they represent only the first stage in translating information into action.

Downstream elements, including warning dissemination, communication, and community preparedness, receive comparatively less attention. Yet these are the components that determine whether a warning leads to a behavioural response. Evidence from both the IEU evaluation and the broader literature reinforces that early warnings save lives only when they are received, understood, trusted, and acted upon (UNDRR & WMO, 2025; Fakhruddin et al.,2020).

This imbalance reflects a persistent tendency to prioritize technical inputs over user outcomes. The result is a system that is strong in generating information but weaker in ensuring that information translates into timely and effective decisions. In practical terms, this means that investments may improve forecasting accuracy without necessarily improving protection on the ground and lack of operation and maintenance could be unsustainable.

The last mile as the system’s point of failure

The evaluation places particular emphasis on the “last mile,” not as a final step, but as the decisive stage in system performance. It highlights persistent gaps in communication channels, user-centered design, tailored risk based information  and local preparedness capacity. These gaps are not marginal. They directly affect whether warnings influence behaviour and actions.

Current monitoring approaches struggle to capture this dimension. Indicators often focus on the number of people reached or systems installed, rather than on whether warnings are actionable. As a result, reported progress may overstate actual effectiveness. The evaluation notes limitations in existing metrics, including inconsistencies in reporting and insufficient insight into user-level outcomes.

This suggests a need to shift from measuring coverage to measuring capability. The relevant question is not whether a system exists, but whether it functions under real conditions and enables timely action across diverse contexts and differential decision making.

The structural problem of financing sustainability

Beyond system design, the evaluation identifies a more structural constraint: the sustainability of financing. The current portfolio is dominated by grant-based funding, which is well suited for initial capital investments but less effective for sustaining long-term operations. EWS require continuous funding for maintenance, staffing, data management, training, and user engagement. These recurrent costs are often underestimated or inadequately planned for during project design.

The evaluation highlights that many national meteorological and hydrological services lack stable domestic financing to support ongoing operations. Equipment investments are frequently not matched by provisions for lifecycle costs. As a result, systems risk deterioration once external funding declines. Planned transitions to domestic budgets or revenue-generating models are often not realized in practice.

This creates a structural vulnerability. Systems are built, but their long-term functionality remains uncertain. For EW4All, which is inherently long-term, this reliance on short-term financing instruments poses a significant risk.

The blended finance opportunity

Addressing this gap requires a shift in how EWS are financed. Rather than treating them as discrete projects, financing must be aligned with the lifecycle and functional diversity of the system. This is where blended finance becomes central.

Different components of the early warning value chain have different economic characteristics. Upstream elements such as risk knowledge and basic observation networks are public goods and require sustained public or grant financing. In contrast, certain services built on this infrastructure, including tailored forecasts for aviation, agriculture, or energy sectors, can generate revenue and support cost recovery.

A blended approach allows these differences to be leveraged. Public finance can be used strategically to strengthen support for EWS as essential public goods while also attracting and mobilizing private finance through innovative structures targeting revenue-generating segments built on those public goods. Emerging models, such as results-based financing for observation networks and public-private partnerships for communication systems, demonstrate that such approaches are feasible.

The role of institutions like the Green Climate Fund becomes particularly important in this context. By providing concessional financing  and taking on early-stage risks, they can crowd in additional financing and support the development of sustainable business models where appropriate. At the same time, they must continue to fund critical public goods that cannot be commercialized.

Blended finance is not a substitute for public investment. It is a way to extend its impact and ensure that systems remain operational beyond the initial funding phase. Without such an approach, the risk of the grant cliff will persist.

Reframing success for Early Warnings for All

The evaluation also points to the need for a broader shift in how success is defined and measured. EW4All has been effective in mobilizing political attention and financial commitments. However, the next phase requires a more operational focus.

Three shifts are particularly important. First, from coverage to capability, ensuring that systems are assessed based on their performance in enabling action. Second, from project-based financing to lifecycle financing, recognizing the ongoing nature of early warning services. Third, from provider-driven design to user-centered systems, embedding local needs, trust, and behaviour into system development.

These shifts align with the Sendai Framework emphasis on comprehensive and people-centered early warning systems. They also reflect a growing recognition that resilience is built through functioning systems rather than isolated interventions.

Conclusion

The IEU evaluation offers a timely and necessary correction to the prevailing narrative around EWS. It confirms that significant progress has been made in EWS investments, but it also shows that financing alone is not sufficient. The central challenge is not the scale of investment, but its effectiveness in building systems that endure and deliver results.

For EW4All, the implications are immediate. Universal coverage cannot be achieved through fragmented portfolios, upstream-heavy investments, or financing models that do not account for long-term sustainability. The focus must shift toward integrated systems and programmatic approach that connect data to risk based decisions, national institutions to local communities, and initial investments to sustained operations.

Early warnings are proven to save lives, reduce damages and ensure a risk based decision making culture are enable at sectoral level. The task now is to ensure that the way they are financed allows them to continue doing so, reliably and at scale.

Read about the IEU evaluation

Independent Evaluation Unit. (2026). Independent evaluation of the GCF’s approach to and portfolio of climate information and early warning system interventions (Evaluation Report No. 24). Green Climate Fund. https://ieu.greenclimate.fund/evaluation/ciews2025 

Fakhruddin Bapon, Helen Clark, Lisa Robinson, Loretta Hieber-Girardet, (2020). Should I stay or should I go now? Why risk communication is the critical component in disaster risk reduction, Progress in Disaster Science, Volume 8, 2020, 100139, ISSN 2590-0617, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.100139 

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, & World Meteorological Organization. (2025). Global status of multi-hazard early warning systems 2025. https://www.undrr.org/reports/global-status-mhews-2025