We live in unprecedented times: Extreme humanitarian needs are being met with dramatic funding cuts. Something has to give, yet the so-called “humanitarian reset” is an ill-conceived and reductionist approach for a moment that requires genuine system transformation.
Such concern is compounded by recent reports that the United Nations faces an institutional reckoning, raising fears that self-preservation will be prioritised. The UN has become entrenched at the centre of the humanitarian system. Many decisions are taken behind closed doors, while Global South populations, civil society, and states are largely excluded. This is acutely problematic. As the reset pushes forward, it must be a catalyst for radical system change that is both immediate and long-term.
There are no quick fixes to the existential calamity in the humanitarian sector, but we cannot continue down the current top-down processes of reform. Many international agencies resist substantive change, but donors wield considerable influence with their funding.
We offer five priorities for humanitarian system transformation. It is based on discussions with civil society actors, bilateral donors, and other international humanitarian actors, and is intended to contribute towards what must be an equitable and ambitious change process. The UN (and international NGOs) already play a disproportionate role in the sector. True transformation must be driven by the Global South actors facing crises. Our proposals may cause discomfort – it must be embraced.
Values: Shift from competition to ecosystem approaches
The humanitarian sector undermines itself by a pervasive competitive mindset that incentivises institutional expansion over cooperation. The result is that power and resources are heavily concentrated with UN agencies and big INGOs. They are perpetually unwilling to substantively cede power and resources to local and national actors, whether affected populations, civil society, or states. This prevents system reform and exacerbates the disconnect between humanitarian decision-making and communities facing crises.
This mindset also encourages depoliticised and technocratic approaches to what are inherently political issues, whether within the humanitarian architecture or with populations that are meant to be supported. All previous reform efforts have failed to address this reality.
Resources and decision-making must instead be redirected towards an ecosystem approach centred on collaboration between actors. Not to be confused with the overused “nexus”, an ecosystem approach prioritises complementarity and interdependence as ways to ensure greater coherence and resilience. It also means addressing drivers of crises and advancing a rights-based agenda, rather than having humanitarians being perpetually reactive.
Expanding an ecosystem approach means changing incentive structures to reward partnerships and cooperation over paternalism and competition. Donors hold the purse strings to accelerate such shifts, while many Global South actors already work this way, such as democracy activists addressing vast humanitarian needs in Sudan. Supporting civil society actors and civic space is paramount.
Systemic: Integrate humanitarian, development, and human rights action
Over 90% of crises are protracted, yet the humanitarian system is designed for short-term responses. Short-term humanitarian funding supports emergency measures that ultimately impede more sustainable approaches. Humanitarian actors rarely address governance issues, systemic inequalities, and injustices – despite their impact on perpetuating crises and humanitarian needs. When governance itself is contested, development actors are far more able to navigate the nuances, whereas humanitarian approaches – often under the guise of independence – are ill-equipped. The importance of civic space and the distortionary impacts of humanitarian funding on activism are typically overlooked. This occurs despite women-led movements and grassroots mobilisation being central to opposing tyranny and addressing the drivers of crises.
For Global South humanitarian actors, including affected populations and the people driving change in their communities, the division between humanitarian and development is arbitrary and often simply baffling.
Calls for integrated and “nexus” thinking have garnered increased attention in recent years, yet the architecture remains compartmentalised for most donors and international intermediaries. For Global South humanitarian actors, including affected populations and the people driving change in their communities, the division between humanitarian and development is arbitrary and often simply baffling. Long-term and coherent approaches mean definitively integrating the humanitarian and development sectors, matched with coordination and collaboration with peacebuilding and human rights action. It will be enhanced through a commitment to feminist principles. We are not calling for more nexus, but rather a systemic amalgamation of sectors and funding to improve coherence, efficiency, and ultimately impact. Civil society support must be cross-cutting as the first and last line of defence against injustice and crises.
Global: Restructure and reorient the UN
It is heartening to witness growing calls for UN system reform. It is well overdue. Yet emerging proposals do not go far enough. The centrality and sprawling operations of the UN are costly and inefficient, and they crowd out local and national actors, including states. It ensures a system that perpetually disempowers and reinforces systemic inequalities in humanitarian response.
The common refrain that only the UN can achieve scale is not due to competence, but the sheer volume of funding that UN agencies receive. As funding is slashed across the aid system, we either persist with a highly inefficient UN-dominated system that will barely reach affected populations, or we dramatically restructure and reorient the UN.
More fundamentally, UN agencies must undertake a wholesale reorientation away from sprawling operational presences to instead focus on multilateralism (justice and peace, particularly), convening, and policy work.
We appreciate that many donors want to preserve multilateralism and we agree. This is all the more reason for UN system reform to ensure it maintains relevance. The wide array of overlapping agencies must be integrated, which is already being discussed in some fora. This is a welcome development and must be realised, but it requires a thoughtful approach that maintains advances in gender equality that have been hard won by feminist movements and other civil society actors. This includes preserving the standalone agency on women and girls, UN Women, alongside ensuring gender equality remains a priority for all UN agencies.
More fundamentally, UN agencies must undertake a wholesale reorientation away from sprawling operational presences to instead focus on multilateralism (justice and peace, particularly), convening, and policy work. Doing so will serve a better contribution to multilateralism, while freeing up extensive resources to go far more directly to affected populations and communities driving change at the local level. Precedent already exists, such as OHCHR, the UN’s human rights office, which is primarily a policy and rights-focused agency.
The alternative is that we end up with many emperors and no clothes – an expensive UN system with minimal reach. We cannot accept such a reality.
National: Establish and/or support locally led pooled funds
Transforming the humanitarian system is continually impeded by a simple, yet solvable, practical challenge: Donors do not want a proliferation of contracts with local and national actors.
It is far easier for donors to maintain the status quo, issuing mega-contracts to UN agencies and INGOs. We understand the dilemma, which is where locally led pooled funds offer the best possible solution. Pooled funds run by OCHA, the UN’s humanitarian aid coordination arm, are increasing funding for local and national actors. This is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t go far enough. Such funds are not locally led and owned, while UN agencies and INGOs compete for the available funding. Some donors also use their support for OCHA’s pooled funds as evidence of localisation – stymying more transformative shifts in power and resources to local and national actors.
Locally led pooled funds are no panacea, but they offer a conduit for major aid system change, and can bring together humanitarian, development, peace, and human rights action. Such funds are better placed to align with the needs of affected populations and ensure coherence with mutual aid efforts and remittances. They can respond quickly and flexibly, particularly when connected with grassroots responders. Local leadership is accountable and better placed to connect humanitarian action with addressing governance, human rights, and systemic inequalities. Local actors are there before, during, and well after any crisis.
While donors often perceive international systems as more robust, thoughtfully designed fund structures can ensure more equitable, decentred decision-making and accountability. This includes shifting away from internationally dominated coordination mechanisms, such as the cluster system, to instead have a locally relevant and accessible architecture. Such shifts are not fanciful. They are already in operation in countries like Myanmar, and at global levels thanks to the NEAR Network and the Global Resilience Fund.
Funding: Leverage influence, fund long-term, and share risks
We speak with donors regularly and welcome their appetite for change, including clear commitments to locally led humanitarian action and addressing drivers of crises. Islands of good donor practice exist, but collective action to ensure system transformation is lacking.
While host governments, the private sector, and philanthropy all have important roles to play, the so-called traditional donors must use their bargaining power to push for change.
Strengthening coordination and alliances among donors is urgently needed: A critical mass can kickstart change. While host governments, the private sector, and philanthropy all have important roles to play, the so-called traditional donors must use their bargaining power to push for change. This needs to be fortified by ensuring local and national actors are influencing decisions and informing donors, rather than UN agencies and INGOs continuing to gatekeep access to decision-making processes.
Alongside our proposed integration of humanitarian and development systems, donors must commit to long-term funding that is appropriate to the protracted nature of most crises. Five-year funding cycles should be a minimum, where an integrated approach means funding can pivot between meeting immediate needs and longer-term recovery. We’ve got crisis modifiers, but we can also have stability modifiers, with funding pivoting towards stabilisation and rehabilitation. This will reduce the hugely disruptive nature of volatile humanitarian funding cycles.
The endeavour must avoid setting up local and national actors to fail. This is seen time and again, as local actors must operate in the most difficult locations with the least support, compared to international actors. Risk-sharing approaches are tried and tested. They require revamping compliance and other onerous requirements for local and national actors, and supplying adequate support for safety and security. Sufficient overheads are essential.
If not now, why and when?
The aid and global political landscapes are profoundly changing at a rapid pace. Global South entities pioneered cash transfers. They lead the way on mutual aid, and operate in the most dangerous locations. They continue to instigate impactful change and are at the forefront of humanitarian responses, yet they are frustrated by persistent inequities.
Our five-point proposal is responsive to now, but it is equally grounded in a need to address structural problems and to be forward looking. We acknowledge donors are balancing many competing demands and interests, and we welcome their willingness to change.
This is a political undertaking and we can ill afford to tinker at the edges, as we see in the humanitarian reset and other proposals. International actors and voices are dominating reform discussions. Now is the time for a wholesale shift in the way we think about aid, who we listen to, and ultimately, how we act.
Dustin Barter is senior research fellow at the Humanitarian Policy Group of ODI Global.
Anita Kattakuzhy is director of policy at NEAR Network.
Ruby Johnson is director at the Global Resilience Fund / Purposeful.
