Share & more
Crises rarely generate new solutions. Instead, they open doors and clear space for ideas that have been waiting in the margins.
The humanitarian sector is in exactly this kind of moment: a funding collapse that is forcing a reckoning with how the system works, and whether it can work differently.
Five shifts are already taking root around the system. None of them emerged from the current financial crisis. All of them have been developing, in pilots and in practice, for years. What the crisis has done is make the case for each of them sharper and more resonant.
From charity to mutual responsibility
The conventional architecture of international humanitarian aid has always been a one-way flow: Wealthy donors provide resources to affected countries and communities. It is a model rooted in charity; in a world of budget constraints and interconnected risks, it is running out of road.
The new Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage, established at the COP28 climate summit in December 2023, is a move towards something different. Rather than one country providing resources to another, it pools resources across many, recognising that the countries most affected by climate-driven crises are often those least responsible for causing them.
Governance is shared. Contributions are negotiated on the basis of historical responsibility and capacity. The logic is solidarity and mutual responsibility, not charity. Progress has been slow – in part because of the wider context of aid cuts; in part because of sensitivity around responsibility itself. But the fund has so far raised over $800 million, based on a model that represents a meaningful break from the past, and one that the humanitarian sector could build on.
From top-down to everywhere, all at once
For decades, the default assumption in humanitarian aid has been that solutions flow from “North” to “South”: expertise and models developed in donor countries and exported to crisis-affected contexts. Regional, national, and local approaches that diverged from this template were often absorbed into existing frameworks rather than recognised as innovations in their own right.
The most important responses to crises have always been led by those closest to them.
The ultra-poor graduation model, pioneered by the NGO BRAC in Bangladesh, shows what is possible when that assumption is reversed. Developed through years of iterative experimentation in one of the world’s most challenging contexts, it has now been adapted and tested in over 50 countries. It worked not because it was designed in a headquarters, but because it was designed in context, proven through rigorous evidence, and then translated to other settings. This and many other examples speak to a basic truth: The most important responses to crises have always been led by those closest to them. The shift is about recognising and resourcing that leadership and agency, rather than continuously substituting and undermining it.
From relief to readiness
The humanitarian system was built to respond to emergencies. When disaster strikes, agencies mobilise, funds are raised, and relief is delivered. This is necessary but increasingly insufficient. The same countries face the same crises year after year, and the cycle of emergency response and recovery has become a permanent condition rather than a temporary one.
Insurance-based approaches offer a different logic. Rather than waiting for a disaster to be declared and an appeal launched, they pay out automatically when pre-agreed thresholds are crossed: when rainfall drops below a defined level, or wind speeds exceed a defined limit. The African Risk Capacity and the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance facilities have demonstrated that this approach can get money to affected populations faster, more predictably, and more efficiently than traditional emergency response. The IFRC’s Disaster Response Emergency Fund operates on similar logic, releasing pre-positioned funds within hours of a disaster being declared rather than after lengthy appeals.
Resilience cannot be retrofitted after a crisis. It has to be designed into the system in advance.
From resource scarcity to financial innovation
Humanitarian aid has always operated under conditions of scarcity. The default response is rationing: trim budgets, prioritise the most acute needs, do less with less. “Hyper-prioritisation” is just the latest manifestation of this mentality.
What innovative finance offers instead is a different mindset: How do we design financing that expands what’s possible, rather than competing for shrinking budgets?
The International Finance Facility for Immunisation, operational since 2006, takes a different approach. Rather than competing with other priorities for a share of annual donor budgets, IFFIm issues bonds in capital markets backed by long-term donor pledges. The result is that tomorrow’s aid money can be deployed today, expanding the resource base for vaccines rather than rationing within it. The model has raised over $10 billion to date, enabling vaccine programmes at a scale that conventional annual donor budgets could not have supported.
Not every humanitarian intervention can or should follow this path. But the question of long-term sustainability and scale needs to be built into the design stage, not discovered at the cliff edge of project or political cycles.
From piecemeal projects to sustainable systems
Project-based, time-bound humanitarian response has a fundamental weakness: A project arrives, delivers, then departs, leaving communities to manage without the infrastructure or institutional support it brought. When the next crisis hits, the cycle begins again.
Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme offers a different model. Rather than continuously delivering one-off responses to specific shocks, year after year, it created a permanent, nationally owned system for managing vulnerability: a safety net that communities understand and trust, and that can be scaled up rapidly when shocks occur. It has demonstrably reduced vulnerability, improved food security, and built resilience. Project-based interventions rarely match this because they lack both the time horizon and the local ownership.
This is one of the hardest shifts to make, because it runs directly against how much humanitarian funding works. Donors prefer bounded projects with clear deliverables and exit dates. Making this shift requires changes in programming, and in the political economy of how we finance improvements in people’s lives.
What it will actually take
Understanding these five shifts is not enough. Three things are needed to turn insight into action.
The first is cultivating the margins. The ideas that will reshape humanitarian aid in the next decade are already out there: in pilots running below the radar, in national organisations that have found better ways of working, in cross-sector experiments waiting for their moment. The task is to find them, learn from them, and strengthen them, so that they are ready when new doors open.
The second is building coalitions. Cash transfers went from pilot to mainstream because a coalition of practitioners, researchers, and donors built the evidence base, developed standards, and maintained the pressure until the system shifted. Each of the five shifts described here requires the same patient, humble-yet-bold coalition-building work.
The aid sector is at a crossroads. This is not the end of humanitarian action. But it may well be the end of humanitarian action as we have known it.
The third is honesty about failure. The Bumble Bee Principle – a concept that shows how crises can lead to change – is not a guarantee. Crises do not always catalyse positive transformation. Sometimes they entrench the status quo, empower bad actors, or produce more of what came before with different packaging. Understanding when crises close doors, rather than open them, is as important as learning from the cases where transformation then happened.
The aid sector is at a crossroads. This is not the end of humanitarian action. But it may well be the end of humanitarian action as we have known it.
If we use this moment not to retreat but to evolve, if we invest in the ideas waiting in the wings, build the coalitions to carry them, and hold our nerve when the door to change opens, we might build something that is not just a lifeline of last resort, but a force for regeneration, solidarity, and lasting change.
The most urgent task before us is not to preserve and improve the old. It is to pollinate the new.
Read part one here:
How crises lead to change
Crises create the conditions for solutions to break through. The first in a two-part series exploring how crises lead to change.
