The war between Israel and Hamas, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world call for more humanitarian aid from international organizations. However, at the end of last year, the UN announced that only a third of the required funding had been received for aid purposes. In 2024, to address the needs-and-resources gap, the humanitarian organization plans to reach fewer people with less money and is appealing for US$46 billion compared to US$56.7 in 2023. According to the UN, this approach should allow organizations to focus on only the most life-threatening cases. We discussed this topic with several experts and invite you to check out their opinions below.
Key Takeaways:
- According to the UN humanitarian chief, Martin Griffiths, the UN received just over a third of the US$57 billion it sought with 2023 having the worst funding shortfall in years.
- The UN and its partner organizations estimate that 299.4 million people will need humanitarian assistance and protection in 2024.
- Experts foresee catastrophic consequences for vulnerable populations and serious impacts on hunger, poverty, refugees, and climate change effects.
- Another opinion highlights a global dilemma whereby the humanitarian sector is competing with other global agendas for financial resources.
DevelopmentAid: Why, in your opinion, has the UN reduced its request for funding?
“This is as much about voicing frustrations and drawing a line in the sand as it is about the realization that there simply aren’t enough financial resources to deal with all the global needs, perceived or otherwise. For the humanitarian sector, the problem right now is that there are too many taps running and this is creating a flood of humanitarian challenges. The reality is that the humanitarian sector is competing with other global agendas for financial resources. This is because these agendas are being implemented in siloes, with each pursuing their own funding resources for their exclusive use. It goes without saying that the more effective we are in achieving sustained and resilient development outcomes, the better the chances of reducing the negative influences of shocks that are the triggers for potential humanitarian situations. Greater cohesion is therefore needed. We cannot assume that, at some point and time, all the separate deliverables from across each of the global initiatives will magically come together and create a better world. It will not happen. In the end, this is not just a humanitarian funding problem, it is a global dilemma and a reality check about the way we are currently doing business, prioritizing and utilizing our available resources.”
“There are several possible reasons as to why the UN has decided to reduce its request for funding. Donations and pledges to the UN have been steadily decreasing over the years, a reduced request for funding will most likely make donations and pledges more manageable and countries more willing to pay what was promised, as their economies struggle to recover from the ravages induced by COVID-19. Across the globe, countries are also experiencing increases in poverty, crime, and hunger and funding usually directed to the UN can best be used to combat their growing domestic socio- economic issues instead of those a world away. It may also be an attempt to indicate the UN’s willingness to undergo financial reform and transparency even in the face of rising crises and an increased need for its presence.”
“Looking from a global health and crisis management perspective, the UN’s decision to reduce its international funding request by 20% despite escalating humanitarian crises seem to be based on the following reasons:
1) Strategic repositioning and optimization of resource allocation, focusing on sustainable, long-term solutions over short-term aid.
2) Aligning requests with realistic donor capabilities as donor fatigue, induced by global crisis overload, is on the rise.
3) Internal restructuring and possible organizational streamlining could be leading to reduced financial needs.
4) Encouraging local solutions where this shift could promote self-sufficiency in crisis management, reducing dependency on international aid.”
DevelopmentAid: What are some of the significant consequences this decision could bring about?
“As the UN addresses the needs of the most vulnerable, the initial consequences of this decision will be catastrophic. Those experiencing severe hunger, poverty, those in war-torn areas, those who reside in refugee camps, and those experiencing the dire effects of climate change will be severely affected in addition to an almost complete reversal of the gains made to develop economic sustainability and resilience. Small Island Developing States also depend on the UN and its many agencies for technical assistance and funding to meet the SDG goals so there will also be a reversal of progress made in these areas leading to the exacerbation of their existing issues. Conversely, this may lead to increased collaboration with the UN and other global donor agencies.”
“The consequences of the decision:
- Impact on vulnerable populations because reduced funding risks scaling back critical aid, affecting healthcare, food security, and shelter for those in need.
- Long-term strategic challenges such as underfunding can exacerbate crises, potentially leading to higher future costs.
- The dependency on non-UN entities, such as the increased reliance on private donors for NGOs, may lead to inefficiencies in crisis response.
- Global humanitarian dynamics indicate that this decision could prompt a shift towards more self-reliant and resilient regional systems for managing crises.
Therefore, balancing immediate needs with the sustainability of humanitarian aid is essential. Monitoring the impact of this decision on vulnerable populations is crucial in the context of global health and humanitarian dynamics.”
“The decision to reduce the UN’s funding request could have several significant consequences. Firstly, it could mean that less aid is available to those who need it most. This could lead to a worsening of humanitarian crises, with more people displaced, suffering from malnutrition, and dying from preventable diseases. Secondly, it could aggravate gender inequality. Women and girls are disproportionately affected by humanitarian crises, and they are often the last to receive aid. Reduced funding could further marginalize women and girls, and could hinder their access to essential services such as education, healthcare, and protection from violence. Thirdly, it could erode trust in the UN and its ability to respond to global challenges. This could make it more difficult for the UN to mediate conflicts, promote human rights, and address issues such as climate change and poverty. However, it also encourages the UN to explore innovative solutions, partnerships, and resource optimization to continue to address global challenges effectively. It emphasizes the importance of collective responsibility and creative problem-solving in navigating the complex landscape of humanitarian crises and global warming.”
See also: What are the economic predictions for 2024? | Experts’ Opinions
The United Nations is the most important international organization in the world with 193 member states. The competition among those willing to work in the UN is fierce and getting your foot in the UN door requires a great deal of preparation, the relevant skills, a true passion for humanitarian work, and knowledge of various topics among many more attributes. With the DevelopmentAid Individual Professional Membership, you will not miss a single opportunity as you will have full access to all the UN’s jobs, tenders and grants for individuals and other useful information.
