As the first quarter of this century draws to a close, the humanitarian sector confronts a brutal arithmetic of growing need and declining support. There are more active conflicts than any time since the Second World War. Food insecurity has reached catastrophic levels. Displacement is near record highs. Yet all of this is unfolding amid a dramatic retreat from international aid and a weakening of global co-operation.
This is not a coincidence. It is a convergence.
The International Rescue Committee’s 2026 Emergency Watchlist: New World Disorder argues that the widening gap between rising need and shrinking support is not simply a humanitarian failure. It is the direct consequence of the geopolitical trends reshaping how countries interact with one another. While the post-Second World War international consensus was based on rules and rights, the emerging disorder is notable for the absence of both. Instead, we find ourselves in a moment defined by rivalry, volatility and transactional power politics.
For communities already living on the edge, this disorder is devastating. And for the humanitarian system, it presents an unforgiving test. Needs are rising sharply. Resources are falling fast. The question is not whether we should respond – but how.
In this environment, the first call is for more funding, from a wider swathe of donors who recognise the moral and strategic value of humanitarian aid. But that is not enough. We must also prove that humanitarian action delivers real impact, at scale, with discipline and evidence. Value for money is not a technocratic concern. It is a moral one. When resources are scarce, inefficiency costs lives.
At the IRC, we have spent the past decade reshaping how we work to meet this challenge. We have focused relentlessly on evidence, cost-effectiveness and outcomes – asking not just whether programmes help, but whether they help enough people, fast enough for the resources invested.
Especially in a time of constrained resources, every dollar needs to be invested to maximise its value. For us, that means investment in the most high-impact programmes – those with a strong evidence base – and the most high-impact ways of delivering programmes, for example delivering them at sufficient scale or simplifying processes. The analysis can be cheap – in IRC’s case a little more than $1 million in the last year – when compared to the returns, which can be as high as 20:1.
What does this look like in practice? There are five humanitarian “best buys” – interventions that matter precisely because they combine scale, impact and value for money.
First is childhood vaccines for $2 for every dose. Through our “Reach” programme with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the IRC has delivered more than 24 million vaccine doses in conflict-affected settings. By using mobile teams and pop-up clinics – rather than relying solely on static facilities – delivery costs have fallen to about $2 for every dose at scale.
The result is a lifetime of immunity for children in conflict-affected communities who would otherwise be missed. Few investments offer such enduring returns at such low cost.
Next is treating child malnutrition at significantly lower cost. Severe acute malnutrition remains one of the leading causes of death for children under five. The IRC’s simplified treatment protocol, which streamlines the bifurcated global system that treats severe and moderate acute malnutrition separately, delivers equivalent outcomes while costing about 21 per cent less.
By empowering community health workers, we reach more children with the same resources and build lasting capacity in fragile health systems. Lower cost here means broader reach – and more lives saved.
Our third “best buy” is delivering a year of learning in just 11 weeks. When conflict closes schools, education is often sidelined. More than 52 million children in countries affected by conflict are not in school. That is a mistake with lifelong consequences.
Our Remote Early Learning Programme uses simple technology, often WhatsApp, to deliver early childhood education directly to caregivers. Rigorous trials show children gain the equivalent of a full preschool year’s learning in just 11 weeks. At scale, the programme costs about $90 less for every child than traditional approaches. It is proof that innovation can expand opportunity without expanding budgets.
Fourth, there is cash assistance that restores dignity and strengthens economies. In many contexts, direct cash assistance reaches more people at lower cost than in-kind aid by eliminating transport and storage expenses. Families regain choice and control. And when they spend locally, money circulates – generating about $2 in economic activity for every $1 transferred.
Cash is not appropriate everywhere, but where markets function, it is one of the most effective tools available.
And finally, there is anticipatory action that prevents loss before disaster strikes. Too often, aid arrives after families have lost everything. By pairing early warning systems with pre-shock cash transfers, we can help households stock food, reinforce homes and move livestock before floods or droughts hit. Preventing loss is almost always cheaper, and more humane, than rebuilding lives from scratch.
These are not boutique innovations. They are scalable solutions grounded in evidence and shaped by necessity. In a New World Disorder, the humanitarian system cannot afford business as usual.
The message of this year’s Emergency Watchlist is clear. Surging crises and shrinking support are the product of geopolitical choices – and so is the response. We must protect people from the worst consequences of this disorder while working to shape a system that allows communities to survive, recover and regain control over their futures.
That starts with backing what works. In an age of constraint, value for money is not a retreat from solidarity. It is how solidarity survives.
