The operational work of the World Bank Group over many decades has largely concentrated on supporting medium- to long-term development projects. It is not in the business of emergency humanitarian relief. But today there is a crisis.The World Bank uniquely has the knowledge, expertise, resources, and capacity to mobilize resources that could play a major role at this time of crisis.
Tom Fletcher, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, says that the appeal to governments for major emergency relief funding in 2025 yielded just $12 billion, which was the lowest level in a decade.
It augurs poorly for the prospect of meeting 2026 needs. Mr. Fletcher says: “The immediate priority is to save 87 million lives with $23 billion in funding. Ultimately, in 2026, the aim is to raise a total of $33 billion to support 135 million people through 23 country operations and six plans for refugees and migrants.”
The dramatic shortfall in UN emergency funding needs to be seen alongside the unprecedented decline in overall official development assistance (ODA). U.S. official development assistance has been drastically curtailed, while a number of major European donors have shifted aid funds to supporting expanding defense needs. The result is that the OECD now projects total ODA to amount to about $205 billion, compared to $226 billion in 2023. A further significant decline is expected in 2026 to about $183 billion.
A new report by the Center for Global Development, authored by Charles Kenney and Justin Sandefur, Update on Lives Lost from USAID Cuts, noted, that as a result of the Trump administration’s aid cuts, “Many lifesaving awards have been terminated. For example, terminated USAID awards were responsible for supporting an estimated 2.3 million people on lifesaving antiretroviral treatment. Extensive award cancellations and payment delays have led to widespread and numerous cases of stock-outs of lifesaving medicines and widespread service suspension.”
Calling on governments to support the UN’s emergency humanitarian programs, UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated on December 9 that “this is a moment when we are asked to do more and more, with less and less. This is simply unsustainable.”
Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Fowler once noted that the severe droughts in India in the 1950s, causing immense loss of life, were an inspiration for the launch of the PL.480 U.S. food aid program. Its success played an important role in forging the idea that longer-term development aid for the poorest nations was essential, which led to the establishment in 1960 of the International Development Association (IDA) within the World Bank group.
Fowler offered this historical reminder in the midst of the discussion in early 1982 at the Brookings Institution that was convened by then Brookings President Bruce MacLaury and then World Bank President A.W. Clausen. That discussion led to the decision to establish the Bretton Woods Committee (BWC).
It was at a time when the Reagan administration was proposing deep cuts in IDA funding, despite the major needs for development finance among the poorest nations. In fact, the Reagan budget cuts, reminiscent of the recent Trump cuts, posed an unprecedented funding challenge for IDA. Clausen, over the objections of the U.S. Treasury, successfully launched a ‘Special Facility for sub-Saharan Africa” in 1985, which attracted funding from 14 IDA donor governments.
Over many years, BWC has played an influential role in both strategic thinking at the top of the World Bank, as well as encouraging support for IDA on Capitol Hill. Now, once again financing for the world’s poorest people is in crisis, and BWC could use its prestige and influence to call for a temporary, vital role for the World Bank in emergency humanitarian assistance.
The bitter truth is that the UN emergency relief agencies are not going to raise anything like the amounts of cash they need to meet the staggering demands of the millions of starving, oppressed and displaced people in Sudan, in Congo, in Gaza, and in many other locations across the world, where conflicts abound and peace is illusive. The World Bank has the capacity to make a difference.
A version of this article was first published on December 19, 2025, by the Bretton Woods Committee. December 22, 2025
**Frank Vogl is a Co-founder of Transparency International and the Partnership for Transparency Fund. He is an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University. He served as the World Bank’s Director of Information and Public Affairs at the time of the meeting at Brookings mentioned in this article.
Disclaimer
Member’s blog posts reflect the views of the author(s), drawing on prior research or personal experience. Freedom of expression is an essential part of the 1818 Society’s culture. The 1818 Society® is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions. Members are welcome to add their comments in the box below.
