The sustainable development goals adopted in 2015 by the 193 member states of the United Nations set an ambitious course for 2030: eradicate poverty, ensure access to education and health, protect the environment. NGOs are an operational link in this program.
Their fieldwork translates these institutional commitments into concrete actions for the most vulnerable populations. However, the reality of 2025-2026 reveals a contrasting landscape, where the contraction of funding and the multiplication of regulatory constraints reshape the conditions for intervention.
Humanitarian funding in decline: what NGOs are losing in capacity to act
The 2025 annual report from the ICRC documents a worrying trend: a marked and constant decrease in funding for the entire humanitarian sector. This decline is not temporary. It is part of a multi-year movement that directly affects the ability of organizations to maintain their protection and human development programs.
The mid-year update of the UN Global Humanitarian Overview quantifies the extent of the problem: only 24% of global humanitarian financial needs have been met for the current year. This massive deficit primarily impacts medium-sized NGOs, which largely depend on institutional project calls to finance their operations.
This situation is prompting several organizations to document their actions in more detail, as shown on the page https://fmg-ong.org/, which reports on projects carried out by a foundation committed to international solidarity.
The gap between the ambitions displayed by the 2030 Agenda and the resources actually mobilized raises a structural question. The SDGs constitute a reference framework adopted by consensus, but their implementation relies on dwindling financial flows. NGOs find themselves having to make trade-offs between their programs, reduce their areas of intervention, or merge missions to maintain a minimal presence.
Restrictive laws against NGOs: a growing obstacle to human development
Since 2024, several countries have adopted or tightened legislation governing the activities of non-governmental organizations. These texts, often referred to as “anti-NGO laws,” impose enhanced reporting obligations, limit sources of foreign funding, or restrict the themes on which associations can intervene.
This phenomenon affects various geographical contexts and is not limited to authoritarian regimes. Some democracies have also introduced stricter control mechanisms on financial flows destined for civil society organizations.
The consequences on the ground are direct:
- Health or education programs suspended while waiting for new administrative authorizations, sometimes for several months
- A dissuasion effect on transnational partnerships, with funders hesitant to finance projects in countries where the legal framework becomes unpredictable
- Self-censorship by some NGOs on issues of women’s rights or local governance, to avoid conflict with authorities
This regulatory offensive particularly weakens local organizations, which have fewer legal resources to challenge these restrictions or adapt their statutes.
Localization of aid: promises and realities ten years after the Grand Bargain
The commitment made at the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, known as the Grand Bargain, aimed to entrust an increasing share of the steering and funding of aid to local actors. Ten years later, field analyses present a nuanced assessment.
Several studies published in 2025 highlight a persistent gap between the discourse on localization and actual practices. Local actors remain underrepresented in the decision-making bodies of major humanitarian programs. Direct funding to national or community NGOs is progressing slowly, hindered by reporting requirements modeled on the standards of international funders.
On the other hand, some advances are worth noting. In contexts like Mozambique, transition dynamics have allowed local organizations to gradually take over from international operators on specific aspects: water management, climate resilience, child protection.
The paradox remains: institutional rhetoric values the cultural proximity and in-depth knowledge of the field that local actors possess, but funding mechanisms continue to favor large international structures. Audit procedures, financial guarantee requirements, and multi-year programming cycles represent barriers for organizations whose annual budgets remain modest.
Climate and humanitarian crises: the forced adaptation of development NGOs
The boundary between development aid and emergency response is blurring. Reports published in 2024 and 2025 by several organizations, including the Danish Refugee Council, document the increasing impact of climate events on populations already weakened by poverty or conflict.
For NGOs engaged in human development, this evolution necessitates a redesign of their methods. A program for access to drinking water in the Sahel can no longer be conceived without integrating scenarios of prolonged drought. An educational project in Southeast Asia must anticipate population displacements related to flooding.
NGOs are adapting their programs by systematically integrating the climate dimension, which increases costs and extends implementation timelines. This additional constraint comes in a context where, as mentioned above, funding is contracting.
Field feedback varies on the actual capacity of organizations to make this transition. Some have developed solid climate expertise, with dedicated teams and partnerships with research institutes. Others, particularly smaller structures, struggle to integrate this dimension without sacrificing their primary mission.
The commitment of NGOs to human development now faces a triple obstacle: declining funding, a shrinking civic space in several regions of the world, and needs amplified by climate disruption. The sector’s ability to maintain its impact will largely depend on the evolution of these three parameters in the years leading up to the 2030 deadline.
