Al Thuraya Consultancy has supported humanitarian efforts for over a decade in some of the world’s most crisis-stricken regions: Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen.
We have witnessed the system's inefficiencies, bureaucracy, and lack of real impact. The recent turmoil surrounding USAID and its network of subcontractors has only reinforced what many of us in the field have been stating for years: the system is broken.
As a subcontractor to a USAID primary, we have seen how humanitarian contracts are mismanaged remotely and regionally, burdened by slow payments, heavy bureaucracy, lack of oversight, poor cultural intelligence, and a total absence of meaningful relationships with local communities.
While the U.S. government’s recent efforts to assess and remove waste from USAID may seem like a step in the right direction, this reactionary approach further destabilizes an already fragile aid delivery system.
The Failures of the Current System
The core of the problem lies in a system designed more for bureaucratic self-preservation than for effective humanitarian action. Some of the most pressing failures include:
Lack of Accountability: Decisions are made in Washington or at regional levels, but their real impact is felt thousands of miles away. No one is truly held accountable when aid efforts fail, leaving communities without the promised support.
Slow Response to Ground Conditions: Conditions change rapidly in conflict zones and disaster areas. However, USAID’s bureaucratic red tape prevents quick decision-making and adaptive strategies. By the time changes are approved, the situation on the ground has often worsened.
Financial Bottlenecks: Delayed payments to subcontractors and local vendors hinder the efficient delivery of aid. When aid organizations wait months for payments, their capacity to function deteriorates.
Failure to Engage Local Economies: Rather than empowering local businesses and vendors to support aid delivery, the system remains reliant on large, foreign entities with little understanding of local market dynamics. This not only weakens economies but also fosters dependency instead of resilience.
Alienating Communities & Strengthening Governments: Poorly executed aid programs often alienate the communities they seek help, creating distrust and resentment. Worse, in some cases, aid inadvertently strengthens governments and power structures responsible for the crises in the first place.
These systemic issues have made it clear that, in its current form, the U.S. government is not a reliable partner for sustainable humanitarian development.
Agreements meant to facilitate aid delivery have become nearly useless, communication is non-existent, decision-making is opaque, and no one is held responsible for failures.
Rethinking the Future of Humanitarian Aid
The recent collapse of effective humanitarian support from USAID should serve as a wake-up call.
Aid delivery must be reframed, restructured, and reimagined. The question is no longer just about efficiency—it is about trust. Can humanitarian organizations continue to rely on a system that has repeatedly failed them?
There is an urgent need for a new, innovative approach to humanitarian aid—one that prioritizes:
Decentralized Decision-Making: More authority should be given to teams on the ground who understand local dynamics rather than bureaucrats sitting in offices thousands of miles away.
Direct Local Engagement: Contracts and funding should prioritize partnerships with local vendors, businesses, and organizations capable of implementing effective solutions.
Transparent Financial Systems: Faster payment structures, improved oversight, and digital tracking can ensure funds are used efficiently and reach their intended targets.
Agility in Crisis Response: A streamlined framework for adapting to changing ground conditions is essential. Reducing bureaucratic delays will save lives.
Time for a Critical Decision
For those of us who have risked our teams and resources to implement humanitarian solutions, the current state of affairs raises an important question: Is it still worth working within a system that fails at every level?
The answer depends on how the U.S. government chooses to proceed. Will it address the root causes of these failures and implement fundamental reforms, or will it continue down the same path, further damaging its credibility?
コメント