The global order is undergoing a profound shift. Long-standing alliances are fraying, while new partnerships are forming based on transactional interests rather than shared values. The recent geopolitical realignments highlight a fracturing of international cooperation, challenging the traditional mechanisms through which humanitarian assistance has been governed.

The consequences for the humanitarian sector are far-reaching. As governance structures weaken and multilateral frameworks lose their influence, humanitarian actors are being forced to redefine their roles. The aid ecosystem is no longer dominated by large INGOs acting as the primary intermediaries between donors and affected populations. Instead, a more fragmented and competitive humanitarian space is emerging, where INGOs must adapt or risk obsolescence.

Scenario activation: a world of parallel humanitarian networks

In foresight, scenarios are not mere intellectual exercises; they are frameworks for understanding emerging realities. One particularly relevant scenario in light of recent developments is “Each One Playing Its Field” from The Future of Aid: INGOs in 2030.

This scenario envisions a world where:

Humanitarian responses become decentralized, as global governance weakens and new, regionally-driven networks emerge.
INGOs no longer hold a monopoly over aid, competing with private companies, foundations, faith-based groups, and government-led initiatives.
New forms of alliances are created, with humanitarian actors grouping around specific themes (e.g., climate adaptation, urban resilience) or regional interests, rather than working through a universal framework.
Competition for funding increases, forcing INGOs to prove their efficiency in an increasingly results-driven environment.

What we are seeing today are the early signs of this scenario materializing. The weakening of multilateral institutions, the rise of nationalized aid strategies, and the increasing presence of corporate actors in humanitarian spaces all suggest that the humanitarian system is splintering into a series of competing networks rather than a cohesive global system.

Which organisational models are best adapted?

According to The Future of Aid report, the two INGO models best suited for this scenario are:

INGO Global Fund: The Specialized Mobilizer

The INGO Global Fund is structured as a highly specialized entity focused on fundraising and resource mobilization rather than direct implementation. In a fragmented humanitarian landscape, this model thrives by:

Pooling and allocating funds strategically across diverse actors, ensuring continued financial flows in a competitive space.
Acting as a neutral funding hub, independent from political influences, which allows it to maintain partnerships across conflicting regions.
Prioritizing neglected crises, where traditional funding models struggle to provide sustained support .

This model allows INGOs to remain relevant even as direct implementation roles shift to local and regional actors. By focusing on financial agility and strategic investments, the INGO Global Fund ensures that resources reach those who need them most, without being constrained by geopolitical shifts.

INGO Corporate: The Business-Driven Humanitarian Actor

The INGO Corporate model is structured like a humanitarian business, leveraging market-based approaches to aid delivery. In a fragmented system where private-sector actors play an increasing role, this model remains competitive by:

Operating with a strong revenue-generating model, reducing reliance on unpredictable donor funding.

Providing services on a contractual basis to governments, private entities, and regional organizations.

Investing in research and development, innovating new humanitarian solutions that meet the demands of a competitive aid market .

This model is particularly effective in a scenario where humanitarian action is viewed as a service rather than a traditional charitable activity. INGOs that adopt a corporate structure are better positioned to compete with private foundations and multinational businesses in the delivery of aid.

Time to shrink, localize, and redefine value chains

If INGOs are to survive and maintain relevance in the coming decade, they must undergo a fundamental transformation in how they operate.

Accelerate the localization agenda

Localization is no longer a theoretical debate, it is an urgent necessity. INGOs must actively transfer power, resources, and decision-making authority to local and regional actors. This shift means:

Moving away from a donor-recipient model toward genuine partnerships.
Prioritizing capacity sharing rather than project ownership.
Supporting local and national actors in crisis leadership, rather than positioning INGOs as the primary responders.
Advocating for funding mechanisms that allow local NGOs to access resources without intermediaries.

The challenge is not just about rhetoric; it requires INGOs to restructure their governance, funding models, and internal incentives.

Localization is no longer just about ethical considerations; it is about strategic survival in a world where governments and regional bodies increasingly prefer working directly with local actors rather than large international organizations.

Rethink economic models and value chains

Traditional INGOs operate across the entire humanitarian value chain, from fundraising to direct implementation. However, in a world where national actors lead responses and private sector entities gain ground, INGOs must identify and focus on where they bring unique added value. This might mean:

Shrinking direct operational capacity and shifting toward advisory, funding, or technical support roles.
Investing in strategic foresight and anticipatory capacity to guide localized responses.
Specialize in key areas where they bring unique expertise.
Reduce operational footprints, shifting to funding, technical support, and knowledge management roles.
Invest in revenue-generating activities, ensuring financial sustainability without complete reliance on institutional donors.

Shrinking operational footprints does not mean reducing impact—it means focusing on where INGOs add the most value in an increasingly competitive space.

Prepare for a more competitive humanitarian market

The future humanitarian ecosystem will be driven by performance metrics, innovation, and strategic alignment rather than historical legitimacy. To maintain relevance, INGOs must:

Develop expertise that differentiates them from corporate and governmental actors.
Operate with a network-based model, integrating into regional humanitarian architectures.
Prioritize strategic foresight and anticipatory capacity, offering strategic insights rather than just reactive responses.
Shift from a project-based mindset to one that prioritizes systemic change and policy influence.

INGOs are not the only ones recognizing these shifts, private foundations, corporations, and emerging humanitarian actors are increasingly entering the space.

A final reflection: the moment for change is now!

The future of aid is already being shaped by the geopolitical and institutional shifts we are witnessing today. INGOs cannot afford to wait for change to happen, they must lead it.

The traditional, Western-centric, donor-driven humanitarian system is fading. In its place, localized, diversified, and market-driven approaches are emerging. INGOs that fail to adapt will become obsolete. Those that embrace change, shrink strategically, and focus on their true value-added will remain key players in shaping the future of humanitarian action.

Shrinking INGOs is not about reducing impact; it is about reshaping how impact is delivered. And adapting economic models is not about self-preservation; it is about ensuring aid remains effective in a world where power is more distributed than ever before.

The window for transformation is narrowing. Will INGOs seize this moment to redefine their purpose, or will they become relics of a past era?