Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, the international community has provided our country with almost 11 billion dollars in humanitarian aid. Billions of dollars also came from charitable organizations, private individuals, and Ukrainians themselves. Recently, the UN announced a new humanitarian initiative – in 2025, they plan to collect another 3.3 billion dollars for Ukraine.
But despite such significant sums, the aid system remains too centralized and inefficient. Donor states, UN agencies and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) continue to control financial flows, make key decisions and determine who receives and what support. This is a missed opportunity to change the old, cumbersome model of humanitarian aid delivery to a more flexible and modern one. And this situation is becoming even more alarming, because in the coming months and years, funding for Ukraine may decrease.
This is stated in the study Annual Localization Survey, held by Refugees International together with the Ukrainian organization East SoS. Analysts interviewed 50 representatives of structures that actually manage the distribution of international aid to Ukraine. The findings are disappointing: instead of involving more local organizations that know better the real needs of the people, the big international players continue to monopolize the process.
And this despite the fact that numerous studies prove that if support goes directly to local organizations, it not only increases the effectiveness and targeting of aid. It’s also cheaper, with costs reduced by 15.5-32%, depending on the application. Moreover, local donor initiatives work faster and more accurately, because their organizers better understand the situation on the ground.
The world helps Ukraine, but who controls the financial flows?
However, even despite the obvious advantages, international organizations are in no hurry to change the system. Ukraine, which has already proven its ability to self-organize in crisis conditions, still receives most of its humanitarian aid through intermediaries. And this means that a significant part of the resources does not go where they are needed the most.
Despite the proven effectiveness of local organizations, they receive only a small share of humanitarian funding. By data UN, less than 1% of all tracked funds are directed directly to Ukrainian public and charitable organizations. The UN Financial Monitoring Service (FTS) certifies that in 2024, Ukraine needed $31.07 billion, but instead received only $22.82 billion, which is 73.4%.
Although the period from March to October 2024 saw the largest increase in direct donor funding of the entire war ($25 million out of a total budget of $1.76 billion), this is still a drop in the ocean. In total, from February 2022 to October 2024, local organizations received only 0.8% of all humanitarian aid, which is $80.1 million out of a total of $9.95 billion.
Infographic: IA “FACT”
At the same time, the July study Passing The Buck Ukraine showed that local organizations work more economically than international structures. A significant part of the funds that go through the UN and international non-governmental organizations is spent on paying their staff. Even accounting for the difference in the cost of living, the cost of international workers far exceeds that of local teams. And yet, despite these obvious numbers, the humanitarian aid system remains overly centralized and ineffective.
How is humanitarian funding distributed?
Humanitarian aid is directed in various directions to provide people with everything they need during a crisis.
– Food security (15.7%)
Providing people with food and combating food shortages remains the main priority. This includes distributing food kits, supporting agriculture and helping the most vulnerable.
– Protection of the population (14.2%)
Funding is directed to the protection of human rights, support of vulnerable groups, legal aid and the fight against violence. It also includes psychological support and assistance to victims of aggression.
– Financing of several sectors at the same time (14.5%)
Part of the funds is distributed among several areas that complement each other. These can be complex assistance programs covering several areas at once – for example, housing, food and medical assistance.
–Housing and non-food products (12.3%)
Many people lose their homes due to war or natural disasters. Funding in this direction helps to provide them with temporary housing, blankets, clothes and other necessary things.
–Health care (7.1%)
A critical area that covers the supply of medicines, hospital support, vaccination and emergency medical care. In crisis conditions, access to quality treatment can become a matter of life and death.
–Education (9.9%)
Even in the most difficult times, children have the right to an education. This funding is aimed at supporting schools, providing educational materials and creating a safe educational environment for children in crisis situations.
–Coordination of camps for displaced persons
In order for people who have lost their homes to have a roof over their heads, an effective assistance organization is needed. This direction covers camp management, resettlement and provision of basic needs.
–Water supply and sanitation (5.4%)
Access to clean water, hygiene products and normal sanitation is the basis of survival. Funding in this area helps prevent disease outbreaks and improve the quality of life of people in crisis regions.
Infographic: IA “FACT”
Which countries help the most?
The USA (28.4%) is traditionally the largest donor that consistently supports humanitarian programs.
Germany (20.3%) will generate the second largest contribution, underscoring the country’s leadership in international aid. The European Commission (9.0%) – coordinates financial support from EU member states. Norway (6.2%) and Great Britain (5.9%) are traditionally active in humanitarian missions. Japan, France, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands (2-5%) – direct funds to food security, infrastructure and social projects.
Thus, humanitarian funding is a global process, with the US, the EU and European countries playing a key role, while smaller contributions help to expand support to different areas of aid.
Infographic: IA “FACT”
How to make humanitarian aid for Ukraine more effective?
The cited studies contain their vision of improving the humanitarian aid system. Among the recommendations:
1. Transparency of costs
International donors and organizations, in particular the UN, must clearly report on all aid expenditures to Ukraine. Humanitarian needs are constantly increasing and funding is limited, so it is important that every dollar is used effectively. With its research, the human rights organization Refugees International has already taken the first steps in analyzing budgets, but for a real improvement of the situation, full openness of all financial flows is needed.
2. Fair distribution of funds
Ukrainian public organizations should receive more funding. For this, the UN and international NGOs should transfer part of their administrative costs (overheads) to Ukrainian partners. This will help local organizations to develop and work more stably. Donors should support innovative funding models that will allow more funds to be directed directly to Ukrainian NGOs.
3. A new approach to humanitarian funds
More effective financing mechanisms are needed. Possible solutions include:
- “United Fund 2.0” is an updated system that will allow more funds to go directly to local organizations.
- Transfer of the CBPF (United Fund) under the management of a certain Ukrainian organization. It is clear that here it will be necessary to carefully choose the responsible executor.
- Use of coalitions or support organizations that will be able to distribute funds to smaller NGOs that cannot obtain funding themselves.
- Introduction of long-term grants for humanitarian aid.
- Guarantees of fair financing conditions, including sufficient coverage of personnel and administration costs.
4. Balanced approach to reforms
It is not about ending the funding of international organizations, but about a fairer distribution of resources. Ukrainian NGOs should work together with international partners on equal terms, using their knowledge and networks to better respond to crises.
5. The role of local mediators
In order for money not to “dissolve” in the bureaucracy, effective mechanisms for its distribution are needed. For example, the so-called “anchor” Ukrainian organizations that can transparently distribute funding between smaller partners. It can also be local coalitions that unite several organizations and jointly apply for grants. Agree that individual financing of each small NGO is too expensive.
6. Study of the impact of local aid
It is important not only to count the costs, but also to assess the real effect of the local humanitarian response. The main idea that Refugees International experts are trying to convey is to change the approach so that money works more efficiently and local organizations get more opportunities to help people directly.
