“Fit for the Future”, “Fit for Purpose”, “Do more with less: Restructuring and Donor Fatigue” – these headlines have become common among national and international non-profit organizations but these are not isolated issues, they are warning signs that the global humanitarian system may be falling apart under its own weight. Facing unprecedented challenges, the operational frameworks that once sustained aid efforts are struggling to keep pace with the demands of a rapidly changing world.
It is a fact that emergencies around the globe are increasingly being left unaddressed with sporadic responses operating on limited resources while much of the world remains in the dark –both figuratively and literally. As the system clings to outdated models and approaches its operational limits, the question is no longer if the humanitarian framework will collapse, but when.
This article explores the core issues that are driving the system to breaking point and why its survival is at risk without urgent and transformative changes.
Financial challenges: Doing more with less
The humanitarian sector is facing an unprecedented financial crisis, with resources dwindling, donor fatigue growing, and global needs skyrocketing. As crises multiply, the expectation is clear: do more with less but, as the gap between what is required and what is available continues to widen, humanitarian organizations are forced to make impossible choices to decide who gets help and who is left to suffer. This chronic underfunding threatens not just the immediate response, but the long-term survival of the entire system.
In 2024, humanitarian organizations requested a staggering US$48.7 billion to address global crises yet by mid-year, only 18% – a mere US$9 billion – had been pledged. This shortfall jeopardizes the effectiveness of global aid efforts. Furthermore, nearly half of 2023’s funding went to just five emergencies: Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and the occupied Palestinian territories. While these crises demand urgent attention, the disproportionate focus on them has left other critical emergencies severely underfunded. Countries like Burkina Faso, Sudan, Venezuela, Myanmar, Ethiopia, and El Salvador received only a fraction of what was needed, leaving millions without essential support.
Meanwhile, donors are slashing their contributions at an alarming rate. The UK’s FCDO, Germany’s BMZ, and USAID have all reduced their aid budgets in 2024.
These cuts are sending shockwaves through INGOs, forcing them into survival mode which will undoubtedly impact their work as well as their operational abilities. To cope with the financial challenges, INGOs are looking into new operational and governance models: remote working, floating structures, flat budgets, partnerships with local organizations, and sometimes tech-driven efficiencies.
Growing access challenges
Access to humanitarian aid has become a battleground of its own and appears to be a global crisis facing INGOs. Conflict zones are turning aid into a weapon with governments and non-state armed groups using it as a tool of control. In many crises, delivering aid is no longer just a logistical challenge – it has become a dangerous gamble. Roadblocks, high-security risks, and endless administrative delays leave vulnerable populations stuck in crisis, unable to access the support they urgently need. Climate change is further complicating access, transforming natural disasters into impenetrable barriers with floods, droughts, and violent storms often making aid delivery virtually impossible.
On top of this, political and bureaucratic barriers such as visa delays, aid delivery approvals, and stifling red tape further complicate access. In some cases, governments go so far as to actively block certain organizations or donors, leaving those in need without vital support.
Adding fuel to the fire is the rising criminalization of aid. Governments or non-state groups are twisting legal frameworks to target those who deliver life-saving assistance, while aid workers increasingly find themselves coming under attack, vilified, and treated as political actors rather than neutral helpers.
Access is becoming a global crisis that the sector has to deal with on a daily basis. To manage these challenges, INGOs often find themselves maneuvering through a combination of strategies. Advocacy campaigns, partnerships with local organizations, or simply waiting until access is granted are all ways by which they try to continue delivering aid. While these strategies only temporarily resolve access issues in specific locations or countries, they fail to address the systemic barriers at a global level. Worse still, these workarounds do not fundamentally change the operational frameworks meaning that when the same challenges arise elsewhere, INGOs are forced to navigate the same maze all over again.
Strategic challenges in a changing operational landscape
Many organizations remain trapped in outdated operational models that focus on a short-term crisis response rather than driving sustainable, strategic systemic change. This reactive mindset leaves the sector perpetually behind the curve, struggling to cope rather than planning ahead.
Even more troubling is the narrow focus on partnerships within the sector itself. Too many organizations isolate themselves, missing the crucial opportunity to collaborate with development actors, private sector innovators, governments, and foundations. These broader partnerships are essential not only for mobilizing resources but to address the root cause of a crisis which is something short-term emergency responses alone cannot fix.
One of the biggest challenges is that INGO strategies are often driven more by donor agendas than by the actual needs on the ground. In the competitive world of international aid, securing funding is essential for survival, which means that INGOs are frequently forced to prioritize donor interests. As a result, their efforts can become reactive, short-term fixes that are aligned with shifting donor priorities, rather than addressing the long-term needs of the communities they seek to serve.
A glaring gap also exists in the sector’s internal focus whereby there is an overemphasis on programmatic goals while the support functions that make those programs possible are neglected. Key enablers such as supply chain, finance, and digitalization remain underfunded and overlooked.
Outdated organizational structures, weak strategic directions, and inefficient resource allocation further compound the problem, preventing organizations from pivoting quickly when new challenges arise.
Ethics in crisis
The humanitarian sector is also wrestling with profound ethical dilemmas that strike at the heart of its mission. Neutrality, once the bedrock of humanitarian action, seems to have become increasingly elusive. Aid workers find themselves in impossible situations where silence is viewed as complicity whereas speaking out could shatter their impartiality, putting their safety and operations at risk. This ethical tightrope makes it nearly impossible to uphold neutrality while bearing witness to rampant human rights abuses.
Even more troubling is the fact that humanitarian actors are often caught in a web of political agendas, especially when their funding comes from institutional government donors. In conflict zones, this reliance compromises neutrality, dragging organizations into geopolitical struggles where their ability to remain impartial is questioned at every turn.
Adding to the various ethical dilemmas is the persistent imbalance in resource allocation whereby powerful and large entities control the majority of resources, leaving local NGOs with only a fraction of the support they need.
Navigating these ethical minefields while delivering effective aid in complex environments is an ongoing struggle and one that requires not just vigilance, but innovative, principled solutions that prioritize integrity, transparency, and the protection of those most at risk.
Localization and shifting operational modalities
Enabling and supporting local actors promises more effective, culturally relevant, and sustainable aid. It challenges INGOs to re-evaluate their approach by embracing a new paradigm of collaboration that is rooted in trust, capacity building, and genuine partnerships with local organizations.
However, this also raises critical questions about decision-making, risk-sharing, and the future of the heavy structures of INGOs at the country, regional, and HQ levels. While many organizations advocate for an agenda of localization, internal resistance persists and is often driven by assumptions about the capacity and compliance of local NGOs and their ability to deliver high-quality programming.
Localization also brings challenges related to restructuring and navigating new dynamics. Despite its potential, unclear pathways toward implementation hinder progress and reduce effectiveness. INGOs must rethink their roles by moving beyond seeing local NGOs as mere subgrantees. Initiatives such as shared overhead costs, risk-sharing, and capacity building are positive steps but remain insufficient to achieve true localization.
The Future of humanitarian aid: expiry or evolution?
The humanitarian operational system is at a crossroads. The challenges it faces are real and pressing but also provide an opportunity for evolution. Rather than reaching an expiration date, the system could use this moment to reinvent itself. To move forward, there must be a renewed focus on joint country programming where humanitarian actors work together to maximize impact, reduce duplication, and create unified strategies. INGOs must rethink their operational roles, shifting from direct implementation to supporting and empowering local actors, fostering community-driven programs, and reverting to the first principles thinking in operational design.
Collaboration must include development partners, the private sector, governments, and foundations. In doing so, the sector can tackle both the immediate needs and the root causes of crises. Equally important is investing in the humanitarian workforce because the people behind these efforts are the sector’s most valuable asset, and their development, well-being, and empowerment must be prioritized to deliver effective aid.
Focusing on prevention is also essential. Investing in disaster risk reduction, and early warning systems can help to mitigate the impact of future crises and potentially reduce the need for emergency interventions. Embracing technology and innovation will further improve efficiency, optimize effective resource management, and strengthen decision-making.
These actions require forward-thinking leadership, strategic foresight, and a willingness to challenge existing norms. The question will be: Will NGOs’ operational systems hold onto outdated, inefficient models and collapse under the pressure of the inherent challenges? Or will the sector transform into something more sustainable, inclusive, and effective?
The choice is ours to make.
