In a funny, sarcastic, truthful, and thought-provoking short video, former Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta talked about the reactions on Trump’s funding cuts stating, “I saw some people the other day crying, […] oh Trump has removed money […] why are you crying, it’s not your government, its not your country. […]. This is a wake-up call for you to say What are we going to do to help ourselves?”
This year, the U.S. government’s announcement of a reduction in global humanitarian funding sparked a heated debate on the future of this sector on the African continent. Between complaints over job losses, reduced activities, and the closure of certain organizations, humanitarian actors expressed concern and questioned the future of the sector. The organizations affected intensified their advocacy efforts by sharing poignant images of the most vulnerable populations to raise public awareness of the severe consequences of this funding cut.
In this debate, a less discussed aspect was whether humanitarian aid is beneficial in the long term for Africa.
Across the continent, crises such as conflict, climate change, and food insecurity push thousands of people into hardship. International humanitarian actors have always been at the center of the response, mostly relying on funding from the West. The largest donors in the past decades have been the former USAID, the European Union, and the governments of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. With restrictive guidelines, this funding often pushes humanitarians to implement activities that meet donor requirements, sometimes bypassing the actual needs of beneficiaries. For example, a donor may prioritize financing projects related to gender equality. In this context, an NGO working in an emergency zone, such as a newly established camp for displaced persons or refugees, may propose gender equality awareness sessions or women’s empowerment workshops in order to secure funding. Many NGOs, seeking resources to survive, adjust their proposals to donor priorities, even if these activities do not directly address the most urgent needs. Yet, in such emergency contexts, the immediate needs of women and girls are primarily food, safe shelter, and psychosocial support. While the proposed activities may be important, they do not correspond to the urgency of the situation and can appear ill-suited to the context.
Picture a well-written project proposal with the delivery of a standardized food basket given to a community in dire need. The document details what is needed, how it will be delivered, how people will receive and use it. Now imagine when the food basket is delivered to the targeted people in the project and the donated items are not part of their traditional diet. The beneficiaries sell some of the products to be able to purchase others they are more familiar with. In the report of the same project, the donor will hear about the number of beneficiaries receiving assistance and little about the adequacy of that assistance. This scenario happens more often than necessary as a result of a project designed without the implications of the local communities, who are the intended beneficiaries of the project’s activities. One of the reasons why this is common is the creation of systems that focus more on the organization’s needs and the donor’s requirements rather than the expressed and felt needs in the areas of implementation. The concept of localization in the humanitarian and development world began with the recognition that service and aid delivery was missing a key component—being the voice of local actors and communities.
Moreover, in highly conservative communities, women’s participation in such training or awareness sessions can create tensions within their families or expose them to social judgment.
It is essential to recall that humanitarian aid, beyond its charitable dimension, is also a diplomatic and political tool. Donor and recipient countries engage in a process of negotiation, each seeking its own interests. This means that, even in emergencies, African countries can and need to rethink how they receive and apply this aid in order to enhance its effectiveness. Countries such as Namibia and Kenya are known for their rigorous monitoring mechanisms to ensure that humanitarian aid is delivered efficiently, transparently, and with respect for national culture.
After more than five decades of recurring humanitarian action, it is clear that the traditional intervention model shows its limits. Over the years, the same international organizations and UN agencies have implemented similar types of programs in the same regions, providing only short-term relief. Once project cycles end, most beneficiaries fall back into hardship. International organizations also tend to privilege Western expertise, overlooking national humanitarian actors native to the countries of intervention, who hold greater local knowledge.
The shock caused by the financial cuts provides the opportunity to rethink humanitarian action. This reflection should focus on three priority areas:
Localization: Humanitarian action needs to be refocused on local expertise. Nationals should take the lead in designing and implementing projects. To achieve this, organizations must invest in strengthening the capacities of their national staff. The socio-political and economic context is changing, which will undoubtedly affect the humanitarian model proposed by the West. Sahelian countries such as Mali, Niger have, in recent years, introduced mechanisms to support this localization approach through training and the development of local humanitarian leadership. This is an example to follow for other countries.
Accountability: African countries cannot continue to receive humanitarian aid while remaining eternally dependent on Western donors. It is time for our governments to take the lead in improving living conditions and seeking sustainable solutions to protracted conflicts that fuel humanitarian needs. Prioritizing sectors such as conflict prevention, health, and food security, among others, can lift communities out of poverty and reduce dependence on humanitarian aid.
Awareness: A shift in awareness is necessary, especially among the younger generation. The effectiveness of the humanitarian system must be questioned, and it must be recognized that it does not foster sustainable development. Whether they are humanitarian actors or come from other sectors, young Africans must carry an alternative and demanding vision, calling on their leaders to assume greater responsibility for the most vulnerable groups. This is possible through advocacy at local, regional, and international levels.
Former president Uhuru Kenya’s short message is something to ponder upon. It is clear that Africans need to think about a new approach to humanitarian action; one that breaks away from the paternalistic methods of donors toward African countries. If the new generation amplifies the message of Pan-Africanism and the principle of by Africa, for Africa, then it must also take up this challenge: to reform humanitarian action so that it also serves the long-term interests of African people.
Deborah Melom Ndjerareou
We Write Afrika 
Leave a comment