Over the past decade, humanitarian emergencies have grown in number, size, and severity, placing increasing strain on the international aid system, which has not kept pace in terms of financial and human resources to effectively respond. Humanitarian response has also become increasingly deadly for aid workers, who are often denied the protections prescribed to them under international humanitarian law.

When war breaks out or a major natural disaster occurs, they join an already long list of ongoing “chronic crises” to which humanitarian agencies and donors are responding. These include complex emergencies—like those in Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, and South Sudan—which have seen coordinated emergency response plans year after year, going back decades. The result is a compounding list of emergency responses (Figure 1). In particular, weather-related emergencies are expected to propel the continued upward trend, as climate pressures have increased the number of natural disasters and worsened seasonal weather-related shocks, like floods and droughts.

The UN has designated the worst crises as “Level 3” emergencies, which, based on size, severity, and complexity, demand a major coordinated response from the entire humanitarian system. Only the largest international NGOs and UN agencies can dedicate meaningful operational capacity to more than one such emergency at a time. Last year, the agency UNICEF listed seven new Level 3 emergencies to which it was responding, in addition to those still active from previous years (Figure 2).

The international humanitarian sector raises an average of $36 billion annually to respond to people in crisis—nearly $20 billion less than the revenue generated by the global theme park industry. Humanitarian contributions rise over time along with rising needs, but not enough to sufficiently meet them. Despite surging numbers of people in need of humanitarian aid (Figure 3), the detailed funding requirements of coordinated response plans are typically underfunded by a third or more, with the funding gap widening over time (Figure 4).

Moreover, the majority of humanitarian funding comes from a small, homogeneous group of government donors. The top three contributors—the United States, Germany, and the European Union—consistently provide nearly 50% or more of the total funding (Figure 5). The broader donor list is predominantly composed of Western European countries, along with Japan, Canada, and more recently, Saudi Arabia. The failure to diversify the base of major donors with other large economies, such as China, suggests that participation in global humanitarian efforts reflects political allegiances.

Increasingly Dangerous Operational Environments

Each year, hundreds of aid workers fall victim to major violence in the course of their work. The eruption of large-scale wars in Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, Sudan, and Gaza has intensified the threats with widespread use of airstrikes and heavy artillery. The unprecedented levels of collateral damage—as well as targeted attacks on humanitarian facilities, convoys and even hospitals—are reflected in the annual casualty data. At the same time, killings, kidnappings, and injuries also persist in lower intensity conflicts with a fragmented and multiplying array of armed actors, lawlessness, and entrenched criminal economies. The rising toll of aid worker victims persists despite two decades of significant advances in security risk management among humanitarian organizations.

The humanitarian sector’s oft stated goal of “localization” (directing resources and strengthening capacity for humanitarian aid to the national and local organizations best placed to respond quickly and effectively) was formally endorsed in 2016 at the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul. However, until recently, localization efforts have been largely rhetorical. Prospects for real change have emerged as the world’s largest donor agency, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), set the goal of providing 

 of its funding directly to local organizations by the end of fiscal year 2025. This includes organizations that provide aid in humanitarian emergencies and a small number of Ukrainian organizations were among the first ever local organizations to receive direct USAID funding under this new initiative. If USAID maintains and expands this policy, and if other donors follow suit, it will be a game-changing disruption in the humanitarian system.

Abby Stoddard is a researcher, writer, and humanitarian policy analyst. She is a founding partner of the international research consultancy, 

, where she conducts independent and commissioned studies and provides analysis and advice to governments and international aid agencies. Her latest book is 

Necessary Risks: Professional Humanitarianism and Violence Against Aid Workers

, exploring the role of humanitarian action in war and the causes and consequences of attacks on civilian aid operations.

Cover photo: Aerial view of a Syrian refugee camp. Many people have been displaced since 2011, making the Syrian refugee crisis one of the longest running humanitarian emergencies. 

From the needs to the responses, we get a clearer picture of how the humanitarian assistance sector has changed over the past decade by taking a close look at the numbers. Those numbers tell a compelling story: crises are growing in numbers and complexity, humanitarian workers are increasingly at risk, and the same core set of countries are providing the bulk of the funding—even as the price tag gets bigger and bigger. Humanitarian Outcomes Cofounder Abby Stoddard provides thoughtful analysis alongside the most recent data. 

As demand for humanitarian assistance outpaces supply, the aid sector is increasingly overwhelmed.