Global Aid at a crossroads: A temporary dip or a new baseline?
- Harvey Duthie
- Nov 28, 2025
- 5 min read
Over the last ~36 months, global humanitarian and development aid have experienced what appears to be a structural turning point — not just a temporary wobble.
According to a selection of the latest data:
The ALNAP Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) report shows total international humanitarian assistance dropped by almost US $5 billion in 2024 — the largest single-year decline on record.
Projections suggest that public donor funding could have fallen by 34–45% in 2025 compared with the 2023 peak.
OECD projects a 9–17% drop in total ODA in 2025, coming after a 9% decline in 2024.
Some analyses — such as from McKinsey & Company — put the cumulative announced reductions at a staggering US $41 to $60 billion (15–22%) lower than 2023 levels.
After a decade of rising global aid flows — fuelled by major crises such as COVID-19 and the humanitarian fallout of conflicts — 2024–2025 marks a steep retraction. For many, this isn’t just a temporary dip: it may signal a new, lower baseline for global aid.
Where are the cuts coming from — and why now?
Western donor retrenchment
Within the group of leading historical donors, 2024 marked the first time in decades that all four of the largest — United States, United Kingdom, Germany and France — cut ODA simultaneously.
Even among those still contributing, many are deprioritising humanitarian and development aid within their overall aid budgets. According to 2025 data, several top donors have reallocated spending away from international aid toward domestic or defense-oriented priorities.
Some governments have announced further steep cuts in 2026. This reflects a broader trend: public finance pressures, inflation, shifting geopolitical priorities, and donor "fatigue" after years of elevated crisis support.
Demand shock and rising humanitarian needs
Meanwhile, the number of people in need is increasing. The UN estimates that as of mid-2024, roughly 311 million people globally require humanitarian assistance.
Yet, aid flows are shrinking — meaning fewer resources must stretch across more crises. The gap between needs and funding is widening, increasing pressure on donor agencies, NGOs and implementing partners.
Contagion: More funders following the lead of the major donors
What began as targeted cuts by certain high-income countries is rippling across the entire global aid ecosystem:
The trend is not limited to a handful of donors or one region — the reduction in global humanitarian assistance was felt broadly this year.
Sector-level data shows heavy exposure: critical areas such as nutrition, cash assistance, food security, agriculture, logistics, and basic needs — which are core to humanitarian response — receive over 60% of their funding from the main donor group (US, UK, Germany). These sectors are among those at greatest risk from cuts.
For many developing countries — notably in Africa — aid flows have reversed: ODA to Africa fell nearly 7% in 2023.
Agencies that have historically relied heavily on a few “focus donors” are now particularly exposed.
Disturbingly, once a few major donors pulled back, others followed — not necessarily in lockstep, but enough to produce a systemic recalibration of global aid.
Human cost: job cuts, programme suspensions and rising uncertainty
The contraction in funding is already having deep operational consequences:
The UNHCR — the UN refugee agency — reported that in mid-2025 it had only secured 23% of its US$10.6 billion budget appeal, leaving many programmes under-resourced.
International NGOs working across the hardest-hit 13 countries (such as conflict zones and climate-vulnerable areas) warn of a looming “US$25 billion funding crisis,” leaving approximately 300 million people without basic humanitarian assistance.
Staffing across humanitarian organisations is shrinking: e.g., the World Health Organization (WHO) has projected a drop from 9,463 staff in December 2024 to about 7,525 by 2027 — a 20% reduction.
Many agencies are being forced into radical “hyper-prioritisation,” scaling back or suspending entire programmes, cutting back on planned expansion, or cancelling commitments — just to stay afloat.
For the people these agencies serve — women and children in conflict zones, displaced populations, those facing famine or protracted crises — the implications are profound: reduced access to food, shelter, medical care, psychosocial support, and in many cases, no safety net at all.
Uncertainty — and why hope remains
That said, it is not yet clear whether what we are seeing is a temporary dip or a new lower baseline for global aid. There are substantial reasons for caution, but also for vigilance and adaptation:
On one hand, the scale and timing of cuts by historically stable donors — and the pledges for further reductions — suggest structural change, not a short-term blip. According to OECD, if projections hold, ODA levels could revert to what they were in 2020 by 2027.
On the other hand, crises are not waning. The number of people in need continues to grow, and new emergencies — climate disasters, conflicts, large-scale displacement — keep emerging. That tension may force recalibrations, innovations in financing (e.g., more pooled funding, blended finance, private philanthropy), or renewed donor engagement if consequences become too stark to ignore.
Some governments and institutions may tune their priorities in response to public pressure, media attention, or geopolitical shifts. Conceivably, aid could bounce back (something we are less confident about) — but only if aid agencies, NGOs, and fundraising leaders are strategic, adaptive, and able to demonstrate impact efficiently.
Thus, while this may mark a new baseline, it is not inevitably permanent — provided the sector acts proactively.
What this means for senior fundraisers
For fundraisers in 2026 and beyond — including those working with agencies, NGOs, or international partnerships— this moment demands strategic clarity and action. The shift in funding flows forces a re-evaluation of assumptions about long-term stability.
But it also presents opportunities. At Belmont Fundraising, we always recommend you adopt a “focus on what you can control” mindset:
Reassess donor portfolios now.
Review which donors of your existing and prospective grants have signalled cuts.
Map exposure: quantify what proportion of your budget comes from “at-risk” donors.
Prioritise building relationships with more stable funders: multilateral agencies, institutional donors less likely to cut, or historically lower-volatility private foundations
Diversify funding sources aggressively.
Consider blended finance, public-private partnerships, high-net-worth philanthropy, corporate social responsibility (CSR), social impact bonds, etc.
Explore new donor markets: emerging economies, regional grant-makers, diaspora philanthropy, local philanthropy in Africa/Asia.
Demonstrate value ruthlessly.
Tighten impact measurement and reporting — funders under pressure will demand clear evidence of results.
Use data, case studies, and cost-effectiveness metrics to show that every euro/dollar produces disproportionate social value.
Right-size operations and plan for flexibility.
Revisit programme scale, staffing models, and overhead. Be willing to adapt — from multi-year commitments to more modular or needs-based programming.
Maintain a “contingency mode” — create lean, flexible response capacity rather than fixed long-term expansions.
Advocate and communicate: be part of the narrative.
Use influence — in your networks, with governments, donors, the public — to highlight the human cost of aid reductions.
Position your organisation as part of the solution, not just a victim: transparent, accountable, and impact-oriented.
Plan for localisation and partnerships.
In contexts you serve, strengthen partnerships with local NGOs, community-based organisations, and governments. Local partners may have better resilience, lower costs, and greater legitimacy — and donors may increasingly value localisation in a constrained funding environment.
Invest time in building trust, capacity-sharing, and flexible cooperation models now before funding shrinks further.
This may be a dip — but treat it as a new baseline
The evidence is stark: 2024 marked the largest-ever drop in global humanitarian aid, and provisional year-end data this year is pointing to further declines. For many NGOs, and vulnerable communities, this is not just a slowdown — it may be the start of a structurally lower trajectory for global aid.
But for those with foresight and agility — especially senior fundraisers and Board leadership — this is also a moment to pivot, adapt, and lead.
By focusing on what you can control: diversifying funding, streamlining programmes, deepening partnerships, and sharpening impact, you can not only survive this contraction — but emerge more resilient, sustainable and mission-driven.
By Harvey Duthie, CEO, Belmont Fundraising Ltd.
Published, Dublin, 28 November 2025
Comments