The humanitarian aid funding crisis is becoming increasingly dire, with the latest projections from the United Nations indicating severe shortfalls as the number of people who require assistance continues to rise. According to the UN, at best, it expects to raise enough funds to help only about 60 percent of the 307 million individuals predicted to need humanitarian aid next year, which means at least 117 million people will go without food or other assistance by 2025.
The alarming revelations don't stop there. The UN is ending 2024 having raised only 46 percent of the $49.6 billion it sought globally for humanitarian needs, marking the second consecutive year it has struggled to secure at least half of the required funding. This drastic funding gap has forced humanitarian organizations to make tough decisions, such as slashing the rations provided to the hungry and narrowing the list of individuals eligible for aid. These consequences have been particularly felt in crisis-ridden countries like Syria, previously aided by the World Food Program (WFP).
Rania Dagash-Kamara, the WFP's assistant executive director for partnerships and resource mobilization, observed firsthand the desperate situations on the ground. "We are at this point taking from the hungry to feed the starving," she said during her visit to the WFP's team in Syria earlier this year. The WFP has had to cut its target for beneficiaries from 6 million to only 1 million due to anticipated shortfalls.
The grim outlook for humanitarian aid stems from several global issues: escalation of conflicts, extreme weather events, and rampant inflation all contributing to increased hunger. Coupled with these, domestic political pressures are reshaping how wealthy nations allocate their funds. For example, Germany, one of the UN's largest contributors, reduced its humanitarian assistance funding by $500 million for 2024 and is considering cutting another $1 billion for 2025.
Experts also express concerns about the impending shifts expected under the incoming US administration. President-elect Donald Trump has previously aimed to slash funding for humanitarian efforts, and his advisers have indicated support for more cuts to foreign aid. The United States has historically played a pivotal role, contributing approximately $64.5 billion over the last five years—representing at least 38 percent of the total humanitarian contributions tracked by the UN during this timeframe.
The funding crisis is exacerbated by the fact the bulk of humanitarian contributions emerge from just three affluent donors: the US, Germany, and the European Commission, which jointly funded 58 percent of the total $170 billion recorded by the UN from 2020 to 2024. Meanwhile, nations like China, India, and Russia have combined to contribute less than 1 percent.
Compounding the funding gap are operational challenges and the logistical hurdles faced by humanitarian agencies. There are immense difficulties assessing needs and delivering life-saving food aid, especially within the conflict zones where acute hunger is most prevalent. Approximately 282 million people across 59 countries faced high levels of acute food insecurity this year.
Jan Egeland, the former UN humanitarian chief and now leading the Norwegian Refugee Council remarked, "It's crazy" how countries with massive economic resources like China and India contribute limited amounts compared to their wealth. The 2023 aid figures revealed China donated just over $11.5 million, placing it 32nd among funders, whereas India contributed $6.4 million, ranking 35th. Egeland challenged, “How come there is not more interest in helping starving children?”
The aid commitments seem to hinge on political climates—a lack of sustained interest has led to donor fatigue among major funding countries. Although humanitarian agencies continue to ring alarm bells, the perennial call for additional support seems to yield diminishing returns. Major international aid initiatives like those sought by the UN risk being overshadowed by domestic priorities.
The Project 2025 initiative proposed by Trump’s campaign outlines how prevailing aid strategies might change, emphasizing more stringent conditions on international assistance. This plan includes the notion of reducing or reallocing support to nations perceived as mismanaging funds or perpetuating conflict. Acknowledging these political shifts, the UN's Tom Fletcher states, "We have been forced to scale back appeals to those in most dire need," demonstrating the depth of the challenge.
With looming elections on the horizon, particularly Germany's upcoming parliamentary elections, how these wealthy nations navigate their aid strategies remains uncertain. Realistically, humanitarian organizations may need to alter their approaches significantly to adapt to the realities of dwindling financial resources. They are already feeling the pinch of stringent donor conditions which complicate their operations.
To combat this crisis, the UN is exploring alternative means of funding. According to former UN humanitarian relief chief Martin Griffiths, there is urgent need for adjustments to the funding structure to prevent future shortages. He posited, "We need to have different source sources of funding," as reliance on the current practices is increasingly strained.
The humanitarian funding crisis signals not just the growing desperation of those who go hungry daily, but also highlights the urgent necessity for nations to reevaluate their roles and responsibilities on the global stage. The world will need to confront this pressing deficit if we hope to turn the tide against starvation and violence, and it will require concerted efforts from both the public and private sectors alike.
