Four interactive charts let you explore global levels of crisis, vulnerability and need, the largest donors of international humanitarian assistance and how humanitarian financing is delivered.
Explore the dataThe scale of global humanitarian crisis significantly worsened in 2022. The number of people assessed to be in need of humanitarian assistance grew by a third, to an estimated 406.6 million people. Humanitarian action had to adapt to new and worsening crises, including conflict in Ukraine, climactic shocks in Pakistan and East Africa, and the ongoing socioeconomic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Complex, protracted crises[1] are increasingly the norm with three-quarters of people in need facing at least two risk dimensions of conflict, climate and socioeconomic vulnerability, an increase from 61% in 2021. As a result, a growing majority of people in need (83%) now live in a country experiencing protracted crisis. In his Insight piece, Albashir Ibrahim, Executive Director of NEXUS Consortium in Somalia, comments on the urgent need to build the self-reliance of communities that face these recurrent crises through more joined up humanitarian, development and peace programming.
There was an unprecedented response from both public and private humanitarian donors in 2022, largely driven by support for Ukraine. Total international humanitarian assistance increased by US$10.0 billion (27%) to US$46.9 billion in 2022, a sharp increase in the pace of growth from the previous year. Nearly all of the top 20 public donors increased their contributions in 2022, with over half increasing assistance by more than 20%. Despite this, the humanitarian funding gap grew larger than ever – in 2022 a record US$52.4 billion was requested through UN-coordinated appeals, with the volume of unmet requirements growing to US$22.1 billion. This is only getting worse: to date, requirements for 2023 (US$54.9 billion) have already eclipsed last year and are around 80% higher than requirements before the Covid-19 pandemic in 2019. In his Insight piece, Jan Egeland proposes some potential solutions to the growing funding gap. These go beyond traditional humanitarian actors, including a need to change the narrative around humanitarian assistance as a solely philanthropic venture towards the idea that it is an investment in stability for a common global good.
Rising humanitarian needs, particularly in the fallout of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, mean governments face increasing pressures on their wider aid budgets. There is a real risk that longer-term development funding is both reduced and diverted away from other crises and the poorest countries. In 2022, official development assistance (ODA) spent on hosting refugees in donor countries more than doubled to US$30.1 billion. The proportion of total ODA from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors and EU institutions[2] provided as international humanitarian assistance also grew to 17% (US$36.4 billion) from 15% (US$27.9 billion) in 2021.
Map of countries in crisis, 2022
Designed world map showing concentration of countries in protracted across sub-Saharan, Horn of Africa and Middle East. Also shows countries entering crisis – Venezuela, Colombia and Zambia.
Source: Development Initiatives based on UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Humanitarian Programme Cycle (HPC), INFORM Index for Risk Management, ACAPS, and UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
Notes: CAR = Central African Republic; DPR, Democratic People’s Republic (of Korea); DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo. Shown only are countries with a UN-coordinated appeal, or more than one million people in need.
Click on the regions below to discover more about people in need, dimensions of risk and funding requirements.
Source: Development Initiatives based on UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Humanitarian Programme Cycle (HPC), ACAPS, UN High Commissioner for Refugees(UNHCR), INFORM Index for Risk Management, Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN), Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) States of Fragility 2022, and UN OCHA Financial Tracking Service (FTS) data.
Notes: CAR = Central African Republic; CRP, country response plan; DPR, Democratic People’s Republic (of Korea); DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo; RRP, regional response plan. Countries with fewer than an estimated one million people in need are not shown. For further information on coding crisis types, see our online ‘Methodology and definitions’, Chapter 5.
You can also download a PDF of Figure 1.2, showing all these country cards together, ordered by the total number of people in need. Navigate to the interactive version of this data.
In 2022, long-term, complex crises continued to be the norm, and the number of people requiring humanitarian assistance was greater than ever. New and ongoing conflicts (such as in Ukraine, Myanmar and Ethiopia), climate change-related disasters (such as in Pakistan and the Horn of Africa), and the ongoing socioeconomic fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic (such as in Sri Lanka) drove an increase in the number of countries in crisis. As existing crises within countries continued to deepen, the number of countries experiencing protracted crisis and the number of countries with high levels of humanitarian need also grew in 2022.
The widespread increase in the number of people in need was driven both by existing crises worsening and major new crises, particularly in Ukraine, Pakistan and Myanmar, as well as smaller increases in most other countries in need.
Many countries continue to experience complex crises in 2022. Climate-related shocks, for instance the flooding in Pakistan in June 2022 and recurrent droughts in the Horn of Africa, are driving and compounding other risk factors such as conflict and socioeconomic fragility. These shocks erode people’s resilience and ability to recover and increase their need for longer-term humanitarian assistance, undermining efforts to address the root causes of vulnerability. Increasingly the main drivers of humanitarian crisis – conflict, climate and socioeconomic fragility – intersect and overlay one another, with most people in need of humanitarian assistance living in countries experiencing at least two of these risks.
A growing number of countries in crisis also have populations facing acute levels of food insecurity, especially those in protracted crisis.
Albashir Adan Ibrahim is an international development professional with over 12 years’ experience in humanitarian development. He is the Executive Director for Nexus Consortium Somalia – a platform that brings together eight local organisations from all over Somalia in a bid to transform the humanitarian, development and peace ecosystem through locally led action. He has been extensively involved in a number of areas which include but not limited to, fundraising, institutional development, anticipatory emergency response, research, and peacebuilding in both Somalia and Kenya. He is also the focal person for Somali Humanitarian Hub (SHH).
The need for humanitarian assistance globally has skyrocketed over the last four years or so as more appeals continue to stream in, while funding from donors has not increased. This funding gap will continue to exacerbate the already worsening situation if it is not addressed.
Most of the crises the world is experiencing are caused by armed conflict and climate change and the countries that are experiencing these protracted crises are Somalia, Ukraine, Sudan, Congo, Syria, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, among others. For instance, the long-protracted drought – five failed rainy seasons – in eastern Africa, caused untold suffering on the lives of the communities whose economic mainstay is livestock keeping. The drought was then replaced by a flood crisis, which has already claimed the lives of over twenty people in Somalia. As a result of these unending crises, global needs are rising much faster than donor funding is coming in.
If not addressed, this underfunding will worsen the situation – more people will die of starvation, malnutrition rate will go through the roof, basic infrastructures will be destroyed and domestic and global markets will be on their knees as the situation will take its economic toll on the world. Prices of basic food commodities will exponentially increase. Underfunding could have devastating impacts for millions of people globally – particularly putting children and women at risk, and disrupting essential services such as health, shelter, water and sanitation, and many other programmes.
As Nexus Consortium and focal person for Somali Humanitarian Hub, I believe that for us to find a lasting solution in responding to these protracted crises, we need a humanitarian system that puts the agency and self-reliance of local communities at the centre of its responses and decision-making. The protracted and recurrent crises the world faces need to be addressed by humanitarian responses that look beyond providing immediate humanitarian assistance and instead contribute to building self-reliance of the affected communities. I envision a humanitarian system where locally led humanitarian responses are primary. We should move away from short-term, project-based funding and stop-gap solutions towards a model that integrates humanitarian, development, and peace programming – the triple nexus.
Preparedness and flexibility in dealing with recurrent and sudden-onset crises through the anticipatory and emergency response is a cardinal strategy to avert crises. Humanitarian assistance should aim to decrease the devastating impact of recurring shocks and explicitly focus on building self-reliance and communities’ capacities to withstand or mitigate the impacts of recurrent crises. In doing so, we aim to reduce dependence on humanitarian responses in the future.
Flexible and multi-year funding is another key solution as it gives organisations time to plan and respond to humanitarian needs of the affected populations and make tangible interventions.
Most funding goes to humanitarian response; a paltry sum goes to development. We need to focus on long-term development strategies where we invest heavily in building the resilience of the affected populations instead of always thinking of emergency humanitarian response.
Total international humanitarian assistance, 2018–2022
Stacked column chart showing sharp increase in total international humanitarian assistance in 2022 compared to similar levels for previous 4 years.
Source: Development Initiatives based on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC), UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Financial Tracking Service (FTS), UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) and our unique dataset for private contributions.
Notes: Figures for 2022 are preliminary. Totals for previous years differ from those reported in previous Global Humanitarian Assistance reports due to deflation and updated data. Data is in constant 2021 prices.
Public and private donors both responded exceptionally to the growth in humanitarian needs in 2022 with a sharp increase in the volumes of funding provided. After three years of stagnating funding levels, assistance grew for a second year with the pace of growth rapidly accelerating in 2022.
This growth was driven by increased contributions from both public and private donors, largely for the response to the conflict in Ukraine.
The sharp increase in humanitarian needs in 2022 (see Figure 1.4), driven by new and worsening crises in Ukraine, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa, has led to growing pressure on the ODA budgets of countries that give assistance. While total ODA increased in 2022, strong donor solidarity with Ukraine in particular risks development funding being diverted away from other countries in crisis and the poorest countries to support both the humanitarian response in Ukraine and donors’ domestic expenditure on hosting Ukrainian refugees (see Figure 1.5 in this chapter and 2.6 in Chapter 2). This, in addition to a reduction in development aid, undermines efforts to effectively address the root causes of crisis and build long-term resilience (See ‘The triple nexus. What is the mix of humanitarian, development and peace funding reaching countries in crisis?’, Chapter 4).
Funding and unmet requirements, UN-coordinated appeals, 2013–2023
Stacked column chart showing rapid growth in requirements between 2021–2023, with line chart showing that the percentage of requirements met has not exceeded 60% since 2019.
Source: Development Initiatives based on UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Financial Tracking Service (FTS), UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and Syria 3RP financial dashboard data.
Notes: Data is in current prices. 2023 data is preliminary in terms of total requirements as of April 2023. Figures for the breakdown of funding and requirements in 2023 to date are not visualised because the funding data is partial and continuously changing at the time of writing.[4] The percentage of requirements met in 2020 includes all funding, for Covid-19 and other responses, against all requirements that year.
The UN-coordinated appeals process is designed to provide a strategic approach to financing humanitarian action by collating together the funding required by UN agencies and NGOs to meet humanitarian needs in major crises.
In 2022, the scale of the funding required to meet humanitarian needs globally jumped to a record high, which looks to be surpassed in 2023 according to preliminary data. The systemic shock of the Covid-19 pandemic had already driven an unprecedented rise in funding requirements within humanitarian appeals in 2020 and 2021, however new and worsening crises in Ukraine, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa led to a significant increase in the volumes of humanitarian assistance required in 2022. While funding to appeals grew significantly as a result, the scale of needs meant that the proportion of requirements met in 2022 only slightly increased compared to 2021, and the overall funding shortfall grew in absolute terms to US$22.1 billion – the highest volume recorded.
The sharp increase in financial requirements for UN-coordinated appeals in 2022 and 2023 was primarily driven by additional crisis shocks in countries that were facing pre-existing humanitarian needs.
There was a significant response from donors to the growth in appeal requirements, with a large increase in funding committed to appeals in 2022. The proportion of overall requirements met therefore increased, inching closer to pre-Covid-19 levels. Despite this, the large increase in overall requirements meant the overall humanitarian funding gap grew in absolute terms to historic volumes.
The proportion of funding requirements met differed between appeals, although with slightly less variation than in 2021.
The funding to appeals in countries with protracted crises also fluctuated significantly, with trends differing between appeals.
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement sets out its requirements separately from UN-coordinated appeals. In 2022, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) appeal requirements increased by almost two-thirds (65%), driven by the large emergency appeal for Ukraine. The appeal from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was larger and saw record contributions from donors, with 90% (US$2.4 billion) of its 2022 requirements covered.
IFRC emergency appeals relate mostly to disasters associated with natural hazards.
ICRC appeals respond mainly to conflict-related situations.
20 largest public donors of humanitarian assistance in 2022 and change from 2021
Bar chart showing volumes of humanitarian assistance from the 20 largest donors, with the US at the top. Also shows percentage increase or decrease from 2021.
Source: Development Initiatives based on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC), UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Financial Tracking Service (FTS), UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), and Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA).
Notes: UAE = United Arab Emirates. 2022 data is preliminary. Data is in constant 2021 prices. ‘Public donors’ refers to governments and EU institutions. Contributions of current and former EU member states to EU institutions’ international humanitarian assistance is shown separately (see our online ‘Methodology and definitions’, Chapter 5). Percentage change excludes EU contributions and compares for donors with 2022 volumes based on only FTS data with 2021 volumes from the same source and according to the same methodology. *Türkiye is shaded differently because the humanitarian assistance it voluntarily reports to the DAC is largely expenditure on hosting Syrian refugees within Türkiye, and so not strictly comparable with the international humanitarian assistance from other donors in this figure. ** Preliminary 2022 figures for Denmark have only been partially reported and are likely to be revised upwards in final reporting at the end of 2023. 2021 figures differ from the GHA Report 2022 due to final reported international humanitarian assistance data.
The unprecedented growth in the volumes of funding required to meet humanitarian needs in 2022 (see Figure 1.4), and the particularly strong donor response to the humanitarian impacts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, led to a significant increase in funding from public donors.
Following a somewhat static funding base over the past decade, 2022 saw notable changes among the top donors as Germany overtook EU institutions to become the second largest public donor and Japan overtook the UK as the fourth largest.[9] Overall, the humanitarian system remains dependent on a small number of key donors, especially the US and Germany, which both significantly increased funding in 2022.
The conflict in Ukraine led to a significant increase in the number of refugees hosted by countries which also provide humanitarian assistance. These countries can report some of their spending in the first year of hosting refugees as ODA to the OECD DAC.[10]
In 2022, donor spending on hosting refugees in-country more than doubled to a record high driven by the conflict in Ukraine.
20 largest government donors of international humanitarian assistance by % GNI
Bar chart showing humanitarian assistance as percentage of GNI with average trend line at 0.1%. Also shows percentage increase or decrease from 2021.
Source: Development Initiatives based on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC), and UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF).
Notes: 2022 data is preliminary. EU institutions are not shown due to no comparable gross national income (GNI) figure. Government figures exclude EU contributions. *Türkiye is shaded differently because the humanitarian assistance it voluntarily reports to the DAC is largely expenditure on hosting Syrian refugees within Türkiye, and so not strictly comparable with the international humanitarian assistance from other donors in this figure. ** Preliminary 2022 figures for Denmark have only been partially reported and are likely to be revised upwards in final reporting at the end of 2023. Figures for 2021 differ from the GHA Report 2022 due to final reported international humanitarian assistance data and revised GNI figures.
The growing humanitarian funding gap is exacerbated by the narrow donor base the system relies on. There is a need to both diversify the number of funding sources and move towards greater responsibility-sharing. One metric to assess the extent to which public donors prioritise humanitarian responses is the proportion of GNI committed to it. In 2022, most donors increased the proportion of GNI provided as humanitarian assistance in line with overall increases in volume, but the share of GNI continues to vary greatly among donors.
Jan Egeland has been Secretary General of the Norwegian Refugee Council since August 2013, leading humanitarian operations with some 16,000 relief workers, serving over 9 million people in need across the world. In June 2021, he was appointed Eminent Person of The Grand Bargain initiative. Within this role he is responsible for promoting and advocating for the advancement of The Grand Bargain’s commitments to better serve people in need. Egeland served as UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator 2003–2006 where he spearheaded a reform of the global humanitarian system.
Over the past 10 years, humanitarian needs have grown exponentially. In 2023, the total requirements for UN-coordinated humanitarian responses globally will be more than five times as large as in 2013. Requirements will be 40% larger than during 2020, a year that was marked by a steep increase in needs due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
While donor funding has grown substantially, the system continues to rely on the generosity of a handful of Western donors, with the US, Germany, and the EU contributing two-thirds of all humanitarian assistance. Furthermore, these resources are unequally distributed, with some countries becoming caught in a cycle of neglect.
At the same time, the number of countries facing protracted crises has grown. In the past twelve months, I have visited Afghanistan, Niger, Somalia, Ukraine, Bangladesh and Palestine, and witnessed large communities engulfed in never-ending war, strife and disasters.
The gap between needs and available funding continues to widen and the system is under increasing pressure. We simply cannot keep up. So, how do we fix it?
Over the past two years, I have chaired the work of the Grand Bargain, a unique platform that brings together donors, UN agencies, the Red Cross Red Crescent (RCRC) movement, international NGOs and local actors with the aim of making humanitarian action more effective and efficient. We have pursued this aim through a focus on predictable and flexible funding, through localised humanitarian action, and through better communication with those affected. This emphasis on improving the delivery of aid and finding durable solutions to vulnerability and displacement is one of the tools in our toolbox as we try to keep up with increasing needs and the growing funding gap. But it cannot – and should not – be the only one.
We cannot close the funding gap without shrinking the needs in the first place. We must work on finding political solutions to the many crises and convince our leaders to invest their political capital to solve them. At the same time, we need to find ways to help people to emerge from displacement and re-establish themselves in safe and lasting communities. Humanitarians cannot do this alone – we need development actors and international financial institutions to step up their game.
To be successful, we need new players on board with us. We can get them by gaining broader support for humanitarian action. Humanitarian assistance is not solely philanthropically motivated – we should change our narrative and discuss the benefits of humanitarian assistance as an investment in resilience and stability for a global common good. This could motivate more states to step up their support to humanitarian (and development) funding. If we look back to 2020, the entire humanitarian budget we requested – US$39 billion – represented less than 0.1% of the 57 highest-income countries’ gross national income (GNI). In other words, had each of these countries contributed a fraction of a percent of its GNI to humanitarian assistance, all the funding needed to respond to international humanitarian crises would have been available.
Four interactive charts let you explore global levels of crisis, vulnerability and need, the largest donors of international humanitarian assistance and how humanitarian financing is delivered.
Explore the data