Countries: World, Pakistan Source: Initiative for Development and Empowerment Axis Written by Zartasha Niazi, Communication and Stakeholder Officer IDEAIn a world increasingly battered by climate change, many countries especially in the Global South find themselves at a dangerous crossroads. These nations are not only grappling with the direct impacts of natural disasters but are also facing a dramatic shift in how humanitarian aid is being approached globally. This dual challenge is proving to be overwhelming.Take Pakistan as an example. Situated on the frontlines of the climate crisis, it is experiencing a range of extreme weather events flash floods, prolonged droughts, glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), forest fires, earthquakes, heatwaves, chilling winters, and even devastating hailstorms. Each of these disasters, regardless of magnitude, disrupts lives, destroys infrastructure, and erodes the resilience of already vulnerable communities.Just when countries like Pakistan need support the most, a wave of funding cuts and policy changes has swept across the international humanitarian landscape. A turning point came when the President of the United States made the executive decision to halt USAID operations globally. The decision was taken to reduce the excessive spending in the foreign aid programs by giving the notion that the aid system is fractured and it is misaligned with national goals[1]. The ripple effects were immediate. Prior to that Netherlands government also announced staggering reduction of €1 billion in aid over five years[2]. At the same time, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) drastically scaled back its Global Humanitarian Overview (GHO), cutting $10 billion in funding requests from 2023 through early 2025 despite rising humanitarian needs[3]. This funding cut was also the result of the USA’s abrupt policies of cutting humanitarian funding, however UN was already in process in rethinking to restructure the overall humanitarian aid and to reduce the bureaucracies at all levels.It was under these pressing circumstances that the concept of a "humanitarian reset" emerged. Announced under the UN80 initiative on March 11, 2025 the reset aims to rethink and restructure the entire humanitarian system. The primary motivation behind this shift is to address long-standing bureaucratic inefficiencies. Humanitarian actors often struggle with overlapping mandates, slow internal procedures, and resource-heavy structures that hinder timely response. The reset envisions a system that is faster, more responsive, and most importantly, more inclusive[4].This reset isn’t just about trimming bureaucracy of United Nations. It aligns closely with the Grand Bargain commitments made in earlier humanitarian reform efforts. Central to this vision is a focus on localization handing more power and resources to local actors who are on the ground and often the first to respond in times of crisis. It also includes democratizing data, transforming pooled funding mechanisms, and strengthening accountability to affected populations.The approach is comprehensive. It emphasizes people-centered strategies, simplifying coordination, fostering collective action, and streamlining the entire cluster system. It also calls for a fundamental mindset shift within the humanitarian community one that places community voices at the center and treats local organizations not just as implementers but as leaders and decision-makers.Yet, as well-intentioned as this humanitarian reset may be, it is not without significant concerns. Perhaps the most immediate and painful consequence has been the deep funding cuts that threaten the very survival of many humanitarian organizations particularly NGOs that have long operated on the margins. These cuts not only jeopardize ongoing operations but also lead to job losses, reduced field presence, and a diminished capacity to respond to emergencies when they strike.Moreover, while the reset emphasizes structural reform, it risks sidelining key stakeholders—especially when coordination is weak or when local actors are not meaningfully included in high-level decision-making forums such as the Humanitarian Country Team. If the goal is to empower local actors, they must be involved from the very beginning in shaping strategic and operational responses. Otherwise, the transformation remains superficial.What’s clear is that change is needed. The humanitarian sector must evolve to become more nimble, more equitable, and more in tune with the realities on the ground. But abrupt changes especially when they involve major funding cuts and structural overhauls must be handled with care. Humanitarian response is a delicate balance of coordination among UN agencies, INGOs, governments, and community-based organizations. Dismantling or sidelining one part of this ecosystem can have far-reaching consequences.At this crucial moment, there is a need for both transformation and continuity. Humanitarian actors must re-strategize and adapt, but they must also remain rooted in current realities. A focus on people-first programming and empowering local partners is the way forward, but this must be supported by sufficient funding, technical support, and a strong network of international cooperation.Ultimately, the humanitarian reset presents an opportunity to build a better, more inclusive system. But if it is to succeed, it must not lose sight of the people it is meant to serve. True transformation means enabling local organizations to lead, not leaving them to struggle with fewer resources. It means improving the system, not abandoning it. And above all, it means ensuring that those most affected by climate change and conflict are not left behind in the name of reform.[1] https://www.visaverge.com/news/state-department-confirms-closure-of-usaid-after-months-of-cuts/[2] https://nltimes.nl/2024/11/11/netherlands-cuts-subsidies-ngos-eu1-billion[3] https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/analysis/2024/12/04/key-takeaways-uns-ruthless-aid-blueprint-2025[4] https://www.icvanetwork.org/humanitarianreset/