Davos 2026 - the new reality for global aid: less “pledge theatre,” more hard choices

By Harvey Duthie, CEO, Belmont Fundraising

As I prepare my talking points for a discussion with the Kenyan Association of Fundraising Professionals on Thursday, I’ve had time to reflect on what Davos 2026 really means for global aid funding. Not the headlines, not the photo opportunities—but the underlying signals that matter for anyone trying to mobilise resources for development, health, food systems, or humanitarian response.

Given the scale of global uncertainty, expectations of a sweeping solution to the aid crisis were always unrealistic. In that sense, low expectations were justified. Davos didn’t deliver a rescue package for global aid; instead, it confirmed that the system is being quietly—but fundamentally—rewired.

1. The most important outcome: an open admission that traditional aid is under pressure

What stood out this year was the unusually candid tone. Government donors, multilaterals, and philanthropies alike acknowledged what many fundraisers already know: aid budgets are flat or declining in real terms, while demand is accelerating due to conflict, climate shocks, and demographic pressure.

This wasn’t framed as a temporary dip. It was discussed as a structural constraint. And that matters, because it’s changing how funders behave:

• Fewer small, fragmented grants.

• More pressure to demonstrate delivery capacity, speed, and measurable outcomes.

• A clear preference for initiatives that can attract additional capital, not just consume grants.

  
  

In other words, Davos signaled a move away from “funding good ideas” toward backing scalable systems.

2. Humanitarian funding is being defended, not expanded

One of the few concrete funding signals around Davos was the reaffirmation of large humanitarian envelopes by public donors, particularly in Europe. But the framing was telling. These commitments were positioned as holding the line, not stepping up.

For fundraisers, this is a critical nuance. Humanitarian funding is becoming:

• More tightly prioritised

• More short-term and crisis-driven

• Increasingly linked to expectations of efficiency and coordination

  
  

The implication is clear: humanitarian actors can no longer assume growth, and development actors can no longer assume humanitarian funding will “carry over” into longer-term resilience work.

3. Blended finance is no longer optional—and needs to be explained properly

If there was one concept that moved from buzzword to baseline at Davos, it was blended finance. But what’s changed is not just acceptance—it’s expectation. Funders increasingly assume that serious initiatives will combine different types of capital, each playing a distinct role.

This is where tools like first-loss capital and guarantees come in—and they were discussed far more practically this year than in the past.

Put simply:

• First-loss capital is money—often philanthropic or concessional—that agrees to take the first hit if a project underperforms. By absorbing early risk, it makes the overall investment safer for others.

• Guarantees work slightly differently: a public or philanthropic actor promises to cover specific losses or defaults, giving comfort to private or institutional investors.

Why does this matter? Because many development-relevant investments are viable, but perceived as too risky. First-loss and guarantees don’t make bad projects good—but they rebalance risk so that pension funds, banks, or corporates can participate without violating their mandates.

At Davos, the clear message was: if your initiative can’t explain where risk sits and who absorbs it, it’s not ready for scale.

4. From “aid projects” to shared platforms

Another notable shift was the emphasis on fewer, larger platforms—pooled funds, multi-country mechanisms, and shared delivery infrastructure—rather than bespoke projects.

Funders are increasingly drawn to:

• Regional or global mechanisms rather than single-country pilots

• Capabilities (data systems, supply chains, regulatory platforms) rather than stand-alone interventions

• Coalitions that reduce transaction costs and political risk

Davos reinforced that fragmentation is now a funding risk.

What this means in practice for fundraisers

Reflecting on Davos, and on the work we’ve been doing at Belmont Fundraising, three practical implications stand out:

1. You must present a financing pathway, not just a funding ask

   
   

   Funders want to see how grants, public finance, and private capital interact over time. “Who pays for what and when?” is now a standard question.

   
   

2. Implementation credibility matters as much as mission alignment

   
   

   Big ideas without delivery capacity are being filtered out earlier. Track record, partnerships, and operational readiness now carry real weight.

   
   

3. Philanthropy’s role is increasingly catalytic, not substitutive

   
   

   The strongest cases for grant funding now clearly articulate what that grant unlocks—policy change, market entry, risk reduction, or scale—not just what it sustains.

The bottom line

Davos 2026 didn’t fix global aid—but it confirmed that aid alone is no longer the organising principle of development finance. The centre of gravity is shifting toward systems that combine public purpose with financial realism.

As I look forward to discussions with Kenyan fundraisers this week, that’s the message I’ll be sharing: the future belongs to those who can translate mission into investable, scalable structures—without losing sight of equity and impact.