Picture a humanitarian actor arriving in a community after years of conflict. Families need food. Children need healthcare. Displaced people need shelter. Hospitals need medicines. Communities need access to water and sanitation facilities.
The organization knows what to do. It has trained human resources, partners on the ground, and supplies and logistics ready.
Only, the money is not there.
This is the number one challenge facing the humanitarian sector in 2026. Humanitarian actors are managing increasing demand and growing needs, at the same time that international funding for aid is under pressure. We see a widening gap between needs and available funding, also because of a decline in official aid budgets.
We are not talking about only one country or a specific type of humanitarian context. You can see the multidimensional crisis of conflicts, forced displacement, hunger, disease, climate-related emergencies, and economic vulnerability advancing simultaneously around the world. On the other side, traditional donors have started shrinking or redirecting their expenditures.
The indicators are troubling.
On September 17, 2026, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) released data on global funding levels and forecasted an anticipated shortfall of approximately CHF 468 million as of September 1. The ICRC called for faster and more flexible funding, especially for crises that have received less international attention. And the situation across the board is even worse.
The humanitarian system is being asked to do more with less.
How is the global humanitarian response scaled? The need is huge.
The ICRC estimates that the number of conflicts has increased by more than half over the last 15 years, with some 130 ongoing conflicts at the start of 2026. These conflicts are among the factors leading to the displacement of people, the destruction of livelihoods, shortages of healthcare, and other long-term humanitarian needs.
But crises aren’t always isolated.
A conflict can destroy crops and disrupt food supply chains. Displacement can add to the strain on overwhelmed health systems. A climate shock can exacerbate food insecurity. An outbreak of disease can spread in crowded camps and shelters.
Meaning humanitarians often have to respond to a whole range of issues simultaneously.
However, funding for response is decreasing.
According to the OECD, official development assistance will fall again in 2026—marking a third consecutive year of reduction. The OECD also anticipates severe reductions in the sectors of health, humanitarian assistance, and governance-related aid.
This can be a challenge for organizations working on the ground.
The number of people who need support may not go down just because the funding from donors does. In fact, it can actually go up.
A growing gap between need and available funding
We can look at all the humanitarian emergencies to get an idea of the enormity of the funding crisis.
In Sudan, however, the food agency’s funding has nosedived. Reuters reported in September that the WFP’s budget for Sudan this year was approximately $206 million, compared to $645 million the year prior. WFP said it required another $300 million to maintain operations, while 20 million people in Sudan experienced hunger.
It isn’t even just an accounting problem.
• Delivery of assistance is impacted by a shortage of funding.
WFP has had to focus resources on the most vulnerable of the people affected. In some areas, aid has been scaled back. In Tawila, North Darfur, WFP has only been able to assist people on a monthly basis and for no more than two weeks worth of food, the wire service said. (Reuters)
Which gives us some insight into what an actual funding gap really entails.
A funding gap is not just a figure in a donor’s report.
It can mean fewer meals.
It can mean fewer healthcare services.
It can mean fewer emergency supplies.
It can refer to a program concluding prematurely.
And sometimes, it can even require an organization to ask itself to make hard choices between communities that all have valid and pressing needs.
The problem goes beyond food.
Health programs are also feeling the squeeze. The head of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria said on September 16 that reductions in aid are hitting HIV treatment programs less than prevention programs, though reductions in prevention generally are more dangerous for the longer term course of the disease.
It’s worth explaining that difference. If a health program treats a sick person, the effect is obvious. If a health program prevents a sick person from getting sick at all, the effect can be less obvious. A child does not get a preventable disease.
A disease does not spread. No one gets infected.
The effect might be delayed, but over time, lowered prevention budgets may put new pressures on health systems that are already reeling. This is one reason why the effects of funding cuts linger well beyond the period in which funds were eliminated.
Forgotten crises face an even harder struggle.
Not every humanitarian crisis receives the same level of international attention.
Some emergencies dominate global news for months or years. Others gradually disappear from public attention even though people continue to experience displacement, hunger, violence, and poverty.
The ICRC has specifically highlighted the challenge of funding crises that have fallen out of the spotlight. Its September appeal noted that some of its most underfunded operations are in Africa, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, and South Sudan, where outstanding needs were around CHF 346 million as of September 1. Afghanistan was also identified as the organization’s most underfunded operation, despite nearly half of the country’s population depending on humanitarian assistance.
This creates what can become a dangerous cycle.
A crisis receives less attention.
Public awareness declines.
Donor interest falls.
Funding becomes harder to secure.
Humanitarian programs are reduced.
Communities receive less assistance.
And the crisis continues.
For NGOs, breaking that cycle is extremely difficult. Organizations may continue working in a community long after international attention has moved elsewhere, but maintaining those programs requires stable funding.
The impact is reaching local NGOs too
When people think about humanitarian funding, they often think about large international organizations and United Nations agencies.
But behind many major humanitarian responses are local NGOs and community organizations.
These organizations can be deeply connected to the communities they serve. They may understand local languages, social networks, cultural practices, and community needs. In some situations, they may be among the first organizations able to respond.
When international funding decreases, however, local organizations can also feel the pressure.
A major humanitarian program may be reduced. A project may not be renewed. Staff positions may disappear. Training programs may be cancelled. Community services may be scaled back.
For smaller NGOs, the situation can be especially difficult because they often have limited financial reserves and fewer fundraising staff.
An organization may have the community relationships and technical knowledge needed to deliver an effective program, but without funding, those capabilities cannot easily be maintained.
This is why the humanitarian funding crisis is also becoming a capacity crisis.
It is not only about how much assistance can be delivered today. It is also about whether organizations will have the people, systems, and local relationships needed to respond to the next emergency.
Humanitarian organizations are making difficult choices.
When funding is limited, humanitarian organizations have to prioritize.
That may mean focusing on people facing the most severe levels of hunger.
It may mean reducing the number of people receiving assistance.
It may mean cutting the length of a program.
It may mean concentrating resources in certain geographic areas.
It can also mean reducing activities that are important for long-term recovery because immediate life-saving needs have to come first.
The ICRC itself said in its 2026 operational appeal that it would concentrate resources on the most urgent needs in areas heavily affected by conflict while scaling back other activities.
These decisions are not simply operational choices. They can affect the future of communities.
If an organization can provide food but cannot support livelihoods, people may remain dependent on emergency assistance.
If healthcare is maintained but prevention programs are cut, future health risks may increase.
If emergency shelter is provided but longer-term recovery is underfunded, displaced families may struggle to rebuild their lives.
This is why humanitarian funding needs to be considered not only in terms of immediate survival but also in terms of recovery and resilience.
Why flexible funding matters
Another important part of this conversation is the type of funding organizations receive.
Humanitarian organizations do not always know exactly what a crisis will look like six months from now.
A conflict can suddenly intensify.
A flood can destroy an entire area.
A disease outbreak can change the needs of a community within weeks.
A new wave of displacement can put pressure on services that were already struggling.
Flexible funding gives organizations more room to respond to these changes.
Predictable funding can also help organizations plan staffing, maintain programs, and invest in systems rather than constantly operating from one short-term grant to the next.
The ICRC has specifically called for more flexible and predictable contributions, particularly for underfunded crises.
For NGOs, this is an important distinction.
A donor may fund a project for 12 months, but the underlying humanitarian problem may exist for five years.
That creates a difficult mismatch between short-term funding cycles and long-term problems.
The humanitarian funding crisis is also a workforce crisis.
There is another part of the story that is easy to overlook: humanitarian workers themselves.
When funding falls, organizations may have to reduce staff.
That means fewer people available to manage programs, work with communities, monitor projects, coordinate logistics, and provide specialized services.
A September 2026 report highlighted by The Guardian found that global aid contributions fell by around 30% between 2022 and 2025 and that an estimated 64 million fewer people received aid in 2025. The report also estimated that up to 23% of humanitarian staffing was lost in 2025.
For humanitarian organizations, losing experienced employees can create another long-term challenge.
Knowledge leaves with people.
Relationships with communities can be disrupted.
Organizations may struggle to recruit specialized staff when funding becomes uncertain.
And when funding eventually returns, rebuilding those teams can take time.
Why donor diversification is becoming more important for NGOs
The current situation is also forcing NGOs to think differently about fundraising.
For many organizations, depending heavily on one donor or one funding source can create serious risks.
If that donor changes its priorities or reduces its budget, the NGO may suddenly face a major financial shortfall.
This is why donor diversification is becoming increasingly important.
NGOs may need to explore a broader mix of:
- Institutional grants
- Foundation funding
- Corporate partnerships
- CSR funding
- Individual donations
- Community fundraising
- Major donor programs
- Multi-year partnerships
Diversification does not mean chasing every available grant.
Instead, it means developing a funding strategy that gives an organization more stability and allows it to continue essential work when one source of funding changes.
For smaller NGOs, this can be particularly important.
A strong program alone is not always enough. Organizations also need the capacity to communicate their impact, build relationships with funders, prepare strong proposals, and demonstrate how funding is changing people’s lives.
What can funders do differently?
Responsibility for filling the humanitarian funding gap cannot fall entirely on the shoulders of NGOs. Funders have a role to play too. Questions include: Can donors offer more predictable multi-year funding, rather than funding solely on the basis of short-term project cycles? Can they go directly to local organizations with more of their funding?
There is also a question of unrestricted or flexible funding.
Organizations need money not only for shiny project activities but also for other essential functions such as staff, technology, finance systems, safeguarding, monitoring, and institutional development. These may not always be headline-grabbing items, but without them, organizations cannot do their job. The end is not just to fund more projects. The end is to make the organizations that have to do them better.
What does this mean for the future of humanitarian work?
The current funding crisis raises an uncomfortable question:
What happens when humanitarian needs continue growing but international funding does not?
One possibility is that organizations will increasingly have to prioritize the most urgent needs while scaling back longer-term programs.
Another is that local organizations will take on greater responsibility as international agencies reduce their presence.
Technology may also play a larger role in helping organizations manage limited resources, analyze needs, and coordinate responses. But technology cannot replace funding, trained staff, or local knowledge.
There is also growing interest in making humanitarian systems more locally led and less dependent on a small number of major international donors.
None of these changes offers an instant solution.
But they could become increasingly important as the funding environment becomes more difficult.
The bigger picture: a funding gap is ultimately a people gap.
The numbers can sometimes make the crisis of humanitarian funding seem detached.
CHF 468 million.
$300 million.
Billions of dollars worth of funding cuts.
But every number represents real people.
A cut in funding can mean a family receiving less food.
It can mean a clinic shutting its doors.
It can mean a displaced person waiting another day to receive assistance.
It can mean a community going without a service it relied on.
In our latest appeal, the ICRC has made it clear that humanitarian needs will continue to outstrip available resources, and other recent reports highlight similar pressures on food aid, health, and displacement programming.
The humanitarian world faces a tough moment.
It is being asked to respond to more complex crises with less secure funding, donors are being asked to make harder choices, local NGOs are being asked to do more with less, and communities affected by crises are waiting for assistance that may not come or come in the scale needed.
There is no magic solution for this: this will not be solved by a single donor or organization or fundraising idea.
What is needed is improved partnerships, a wider range of more reliable funding, additional support for local organizations, and increased focus on less well-known crises.
And most importantly, we need to know what is truly represented in humanitarian funding.
It is not just a measure of money granted to aid organizations.
It is the ability to ensure a family has enough food, provide a displaced child with a future, support a community’s recovery from disaster, and give people a chance to rebuild their lives.
And as the distance between humanitarian needs and funding continues to grow, the pressing question facing the humanitarian sector is, how can we make sure that those who need help most are not left behind?
