The World's Humanitarian System Is Failing, and So Is the Way We Fund It

By mid-2025, the UN's $47.4 billion global humanitarian appeal had achieved just 16.8% of its target. It is the lowest level of fulfilment in the history of the system, a staggering 40% drop compared with the same point last year.

This is not just a bad funding year. It is a collapse. UN officials have called it "the most severe challenge to international humanitarian work since World War II". The data bears them out: 2024 saw the largest fall in humanitarian funding ever recorded, a $5 billion drop in a single year. By February this year, 10% of humanitarian NGO staff worldwide had been laid off. Programmes are closing at scale, from food distribution hubs in Sudan to medical outreach in Yemen.

The Perfect Storm Behind the Collapse

Three forces have converged:

1. Escalating need: 305 million people now require humanitarian assistance globally.
2. Withdrawing donors: traditional funders are scaling back, often citing domestic pressures.
3. An outdated funding model: designed for one-off emergencies, not the sustained, multi-region crises we face today.

Sudan's war alone accounts for one in ten people in humanitarian need worldwide and is destabilising the wider Sahel. South-East Africa has 85 million people in need. These are not isolated emergencies; they are interconnected shocks, with consequences that reach far beyond the regions affected.

Why This Should Worry Everyone, Not Just the Aid Sector

The humanitarian system is also the crisis-response backstop for global commerce. Its supply chains, health networks, and infrastructure support stabilise regions that matter to trade, investment, and security. When these systems fail, disruption spreads. COVID-19 proved how quickly humanitarian supply chain breakdowns cascade into business shutdowns, shortages, and inflationary shocks.

Ignoring the humanitarian gap is not just morally indefensible; it is commercially reckless.

We Must Stop Funding Crises Like It's 1995

For decades, the dominant model has been reactive: disaster strikes, images fill the news, and pledges are made. But today's crises are protracted, predictable, and overlapping. By the time the appeals go out, the damage is already compounding.

The economics of pre-crisis investment are indisputable:

• Every £1 spent on risk reduction saves £4 to £7 in later response costs.
• Pre-positioned resources cut malnutrition treatment costs by 20%.
• Multi-year commitments preserve institutional capacity - the first thing to vanish in a funding drought.

Philanthropy's Urgent Pivot

If governments are retreating, the philanthropic sector - individual donors, foundations, corporate leaders - must act. That means shifting focus from reactive relief to structured, multi-year resilience funding. It is not just about doing good; it is about safeguarding the systems that underpin global stability and, by extension, business continuity.

The Hard Truth

Without a structural shift in how we fund humanitarian work, the world will continue to lurch from crisis to crisis - each more costly, more destabilising, and more deadly than the last. The world's richest individuals and companies have both the means and the incentive to change this trajectory. In a time of historic scarcity, the most strategic gift is not the cheque written after disaster strikes. It is the investment made before disaster hits.