By Dr. Adnan Saif, Head of International Cooperation Unit, Qatar Charity
The humanitarian system is confronting more than a funding shortage. It is undergoing a deeper transformation. A model built largely around aid flowing from a relatively small group of traditional donors to those in need is increasingly strained in a world where crises are multiplying, overlapping and lasting longer, even as resources decline.
What is emerging is a humanitarian system with more diverse sources of financing, stronger local leadership, and greater reliance on partnerships, technology and Islamic social finance. For Arab and Gulf humanitarian organizations, this shift offers an opportunity to move from the margins of the international humanitarian system towards a more influential role in shaping its future.
For decades, the international humanitarian system rested on a seemingly predictable formula. A crisis occurred, needs were assessed, donor governments and international organizations mobilized funding, and resources moved through networks of agencies and partners until assistance reached affected communities. This model has saved millions of lives, mitigated the effects of conflict, disaster and displacement, and established international solidarity as both a moral commitment and a practical response to human suffering.
But the world in which this model took shape is changing faster than the system can adapt. Crises are multiplying and becoming more protracted. Conflicts are expanding. Climate shocks are becoming more frequent. At the same time, the resources available to respond are shrinking.
The figures reveal the scale of the imbalance. International humanitarian assistance fell from $47.4 billion in 2023 to $33.3 billion in 2025, a decline of almost 30% in just two years. In 2025 alone, international humanitarian assistance fell by $8.1 billion. UN-coordinated appeals received only 35% of their funding requirements, while funding to local and national actors declined by 27%. These figures point to a humanitarian system under extraordinary financial pressure.
This is more than a temporary shortfall that can be solved through another round of pledges. It raises a more fundamental question: can a system that depends heavily on a limited group of donor governments remain sustainable as crises expand and public aid budgets contract?
This is where the idea of “beyond aid” becomes important. It does not signal the end of humanitarian assistance. Rather, it marks a move beyond the assumption that aid alone can meet the scale and complexity of today’s challenges.
A World of Overlapping Crises
Humanitarian crises can no longer be understood as isolated events that unfold one after another. Conflict may coincide with drought, rising food and energy prices, displacement and the breakdown of public services, with each shock intensifying the effects of the others.
The term polycrisis captures this reality: shocks interact across sectors and borders, producing consequences that extend well beyond conventional geographical and institutional boundaries.
Against this backdrop, it is no longer enough to ask how aid can reach people as quickly as possible. We must also ask how communities can become less vulnerable before the next shock arrives, and how emergency response can be linked more effectively with long-term development and resilience.
Emergency food assistance remains essential. But it cannot substitute for stronger livelihoods, better water management, more resilient local services or preparedness for future risks. The challenge is to meet immediate needs without locking communities into a recurring cycle of dependence on relief.
From Donor-Recipient Relationships to Partnership
This reality also requires a rethink of the traditional donor-recipient relationship. Under the conventional model, one party often provided the resources and set the priorities, while another delivered the programs. The emerging humanitarian landscape requires something more collaborative: partnerships that bring together finance, knowledge, technical expertise and access to communities.
Meaningful localization is not about transferring implementation responsibilities to local partners while financing, decision-making and risk remain elsewhere.
One partner may bring funding, another specialist expertise, while a local organization contributes something equally important: contextual knowledge, community trust and a sustained presence on the ground.
But genuine partnership requires more than changing the terminology used in agreements. It means sharing responsibility for setting priorities, designing programs and managing risk, while recognizing the value each partner contributes.
The more useful question is no longer simply “Who funds whom?” It is: What can partners build together, and how can short-term transactions evolve into relationships capable of learning, adapting and delivering lasting impact?
Localization: Shifting Funding and Decision-Making Closer to Communities
Local and national organizations are often closest to communities affected by crisis. They understand local realities, relationships and constraints, and frequently remain long after international organizations have left.
Yet the 27% decline in funding to local and national actors in 2025 shows that growing commitments to localization do not always translate into greater resources or decision-making power.
Meaningful localization is not about transferring implementation responsibilities to local partners while financing, decision-making and risk remain elsewhere. It requires direct and flexible funding, fair coverage of institutional costs, investment in capacity, and meaningful participation in governance, program design and evaluation.
Nor does localization eliminate the role of international organizations. It redefines it. Instead of leading responses on behalf of others, international actors can help enable leadership closer to communities while continuing to provide expertise, coordination, protection and international advocacy.
Who Will Finance the Future of Humanitarian Action?
If traditional donor governments cannot keep pace with growing humanitarian needs on their own, the funding base must broaden. This could include the private sector, philanthropic institutions, blended finance, impact investing and anticipatory financing. In this context, UN agencies and international organizations are showing growing interest in philanthropy and Islamic social finance, particularly Zakat, Sadaqah, Awqaf and socially oriented Sukuk, as resources that can support relief, recovery and resilience.
Yet diversifying finance must not mean turning humanitarian action into a marketplace. Those in greatest need are often the least able to generate a financial return, while some life-saving services should never be judged through the lens of profitability. The humanitarian sector therefore needs to distinguish between what requires grant funding, what can appropriately be financed through investment instruments, and where blended approaches may work.
The measure should not be how sophisticated or attractive a financial instrument appears. The real test is whether it protects dignity and meets humanitarian needs efficiently and equitably.
The UNHCR Refugee Zakat Fund illustrates the growing institutional role of Islamic philanthropy. In 2025, the Fund mobilized around $39 million in Zakat and Sadaqah and supported more than one million refugees and internally displaced people across 25 countries.
At the same time, new sources of finance must not become an excuse for diminishing public responsibility. Islamic and philanthropic finance should expand and complement collective humanitarian capacity, rather than become a permanent substitute for declining government funding. Its value should be measured by its ability to protect human dignity and respond to community priorities, not simply by the amount of funding it can mobilize.
Technology: An Opportunity Built on Trust
Technology, data and artificial intelligence are set to play an increasingly important role in assessing humanitarian needs, analyzing risk, managing resources and anticipating crises.
Digital tools can help organizations direct assistance more quickly, reduce waste and improve communication with communities. They can also open new opportunities for local organizations to access knowledge, markets and financing platforms.
But humanitarian organizations handle highly sensitive information about people living in vulnerable circumstances. Mistakes in the collection, sharing or interpretation of that data can result in exclusion, discrimination or serious risks to individuals.
The question, therefore, is not simply what an algorithm can do. Humanitarian organizations must also ask who designed it, what data it was trained on, who reviews its decisions, and how people affected by those decisions can challenge them.
Good technology is the one that strengthens human judgement and accountability, rather than attempting to replace them.
A New Role for Arab and Gulf Humanitarian Organizations
These shifts create an important opening for Arab and Gulf humanitarian organizations. The region brings more than financial resources to the humanitarian system. Its institutions have extensive field experience, strong ties with communities across the Global South, deeply rooted traditions of Zakat, Waqf and Sadaqah, and the ability to build bridges between international institutions and national and local actors.
Together, these strengths can contribute to more diverse financing models, more balanced partnerships and humanitarian responses that better reflect local contexts and values.
Humanitarian aid is not disappearing. In a more turbulent world, the need for it may become even more urgent.
Seizing this opportunity, however, requires moving beyond the role of an “additional donor” within an existing international architecture.
It means investing more deeply in research and knowledge, data and evidence, innovative financial instruments, workforce capabilities, and participation in the forums where humanitarian policies and standards are shaped. It also means building partnerships around shared financing, implementation and advocacy rather than one-way funding relationships.
In this way, Arab humanitarian organizations can move from following international priorities to helping shape them and exploring alternative approaches.
Beyond Aid Alone
Humanitarian aid is not disappearing. In a more turbulent world, the need for it may become even more urgent.
What must change is the assumption that directing more money through the same channels will, by itself, be enough to confront crises that are increasingly complex and protracted.
The humanitarian system taking shape will need a broader funding base, stronger local leadership, more balanced partnerships, responsible use of technology, and closer connections between relief, development, resilience and preparedness.
The central question, then, is not how to preserve the existing system exactly as it is. It is how to build one that is fairer, more adaptable and more effective.
For Arab and Islamic humanitarian organizations, this transformation brings both opportunity and responsibility. The goal should not simply be to secure a larger place within the old architecture, but to contribute meaningfully to shaping what comes next.
The defining question is therefore no longer:
Where will we stand in the new humanitarian system?
It is:
What vision, resources and expertise will we bring to it, and who will ultimately benefit?
