A child being screened for malnutrition as part of Action Against Hunger’s work in Isiolo County, Kenya. — February 5, 2025. Credit: Abel Gichuru for Action Against Hunger
By Michelle Brown
NEW YORK, Sep 22 2025 – As world leaders convene in New York, September 22-30, for the 80th session of the UN General Assembly, they will confront a humanitarian sector in crisis. With only 9% of the $47 billion requested for global humanitarian needs currently funded, the sector faces what UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher calls “a crisis of morale and legitimacy” alongside devastating funding cuts. So where do we go from here?
The UN’s Humanitarian Reset, launched this past March, represents the most ambitious attempt in decades to transform how we deliver aid. Rather than viewing this as just another round of reform, we must see it as an opportunity to build something fundamentally better: a system that is locally-led, globally supported, and dramatically more efficient.
The Crisis Driving Change
The scale of today’s humanitarian challenge is daunting. Humanitarian needs continue to increase while funding dwindles, forcing impossible ethical choices about which kinds of programs to prioritize and which communities to serve.
Recent cuts to US foreign aid have accelerated this crisis, leaving organizations scrambling to maintain essential services while thousands of humanitarian workers face layoffs.
Critics have claimed that we are a wasteful, divided bureaucracy. Our response must be to demonstrate that we are efficient, united, independent, and saving lives. If this moment of constraint is forcing our sector to confront uncomfortable truths, it also may unleash us to more fully deliver on our promise.
Reimagining Roles for Maximum Impact
The reset’s core insight is that each actor in the humanitarian ecosystem has unique strengths. Rather than competing for the same roles, we should optimize for what each does best.
- • UN agencies excel at diplomacy, coordination, and norm-setting. Their relationships with national authorities and convening power are irreplaceable. But direct implementation often isn’t their strength, and their structures can be prohibitively expensive with high overhead costs and complex security requirements.
• International NGOs bring technical expertise, can access hard-to-reach areas, and maintain principled independence. They can bridge global knowledge with local realities, strengthen national systems, and operate in contexts where civic space is restricted.
• Local and national organizations are the frontline responders with deep community knowledge and long-term presence. They understand cultural dynamics, can negotiate access more effectively, and provide the foundation for sustainable systems.
Communities in access-constrained areas have built schools through diaspora funding, negotiated their own security arrangements, and created supply chains that reach areas many international organizations cannot.
This clarification of roles should drive funding decisions.
If the role of UN agencies is focused on norm and standard-defining, coordination, and pass-through, more resources will be available for international, national, and local actors to drive implementation. The goal isn’t to bypass the UN, but to optimize the entire system. Fund UN agencies for diplomatic engagement and coordination. Fund international NGOs for implementation and technical assistance. Fund local organizations for community engagement and sustainable service delivery.
Cash, Data, and Dignity
Three innovations deserve acceleration regardless of funding levels.
Cash-based programming, particularly multi-purpose transfers, exemplifies the reset’s principles. It’s cost-effective, context-sensitive, and upholds recipient dignity while promoting local ownership. We should shift towards cash-transfer programming where possible.
Similarly, better data sharing and early warning systems can dramatically improve targeting and coordination. Donors should continue to fund a more harmonized data collection and data sharing system for better diagnosis, targeting and coordination of needs, reducing duplication while improving effectiveness.
Critically, as the system streamlines, we cannot lose sight of how central protection must be to all of our work. Most humanitarian crises are protection crises, even if they aren’t acknowledged as such. Gender-based violence services, child protection, and civilian safety aren’t add-ons to humanitarian response—they’re foundations that enable all other interventions to succeed.
The Path Forward
The humanitarian reset isn’t about doing less with less; it’s about doing differently with what we have. It’s about moving from a system driven by the money we can raise to one based on greatest need, even more rooted in and responsive to the communities we serve.
As member states discuss UN80 reforms during this General Assembly session, they must resist the temptation to simply cut programs. Instead, they should invest in the transformation needed to make humanitarian aid more efficient and effective. Member states attending UNGA 80 must champion a humanitarian system that measures success not by institutional survival, but by lives saved and communities empowered.
This means supporting innovative funding mechanisms, investing in local capacity, and having the courage to redistribute power from global headquarters to frontline communities. Fundamentally, radical reform requires those with power to give it away.
The choice facing world leaders in New York is clear: continue with a system that struggles to meet growing needs, or embrace a reset that puts communities at the center and optimizes every actor’s unique contribution.
The humanitarian sector’s breaking point can become its transformation moment, but only if we have the courage to truly reset how we work.
Michelle Brown is Associate Director of Advocacy, Action Against Hunger
IPS UN Bureau