Breaking system inertia: why the humanitarian reset must prioritise civilian protection

On 17 June 2025, the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC) announced the second phase of the humanitarian reset following deliberations by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Principals in Geneva. There has been significant debate and speculation as to what they would decide and how they would propose to go about it. Protection until recently had received little attention in reset discussions. While it is mentioned in the ERC’s statement, there remains insufficient detail on how it will be prioritised in a ‘transactional, inward-looking and less generous era’.

May 2025 marked 10 years since the publication of the IASC-commissioned independent Whole of System Review of Protection, part of its commitment to make protection central to humanitarian action. This was a commitment initiated during the early stages of the Syria crisis, driven by the UN and wider system failures to protect civilians in Sri Lanka and Myanmar. The review led to the IASC’s first protection policy in 2016, which sought to elevate protection as a system-wide responsibility and reduce the risks civilians in crisis face. When reviewed by the Humanitarian Policy Group in 2022, the overall outcome was found to be incoherent, inadequate and ineffective, repeating many of the Whole of System Review of Protection findings.

These successive reviews have revealed a system unable to learn and adapt, now contending with escalating threats to civilians and those who strive to help them. As external shocks drive the reset, a critical opportunity emerges for the humanitarian system to better position itself to protect civilians and prepare for the increasing threats both will face in a changing world order.

Changing world order and humanitarian impacts

The signs of a shifting world order have been visible for some time. For civilians in Gaza killed and injured while trying to access food and the wider humanitarian system, the consequences are existential. The United States–Israel militarised aid distribution scheme imposed on Gaza since late May 2025 has caused several mass casualty incidents, killing hundreds and injuring many more.

There are increasing concerns over Fogbow, a for-profit US company headed by a former military and CIA officer, that has provided logistical support for aid in Sudan, South Sudan and Gaza. The company has reported increased interest in its services following US Agency for International Development (USAID) cuts. Resorting to unaccountable private contractors in insecure environments is not new, but there are wider political and legal implications to consider. This should be seen and understood as part of a broader strategy to remove independent, principled aid delivery and the legal frameworks that protect it.

Collective political action has so far been insufficient and unable to reduce the drivers of increasing threats to civilians, principled aid delivery and global stability. The rise in autocratisation – including right-wing popularism, polarisation and disinformation, among other challenges – further undermines the conditions necessary for effective collective action. The total number of armed conflicts have doubled over the past five years alongside pervasive impunity and decreasing respect for international humanitarian law. Record numbers are displaced and facing acute food insecurity, pushing the humanitarian system to its limits.

As funding requests for humanitarian appeals increased, donors warned of shrinking aid budgets post-Covid. The loss of US funding – estimated at 40% of the overall humanitarian spend – will have the greatest impact, but the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, among others, have also reduced their aid budgets. This trend is predicted to deepen based on 2025 projections.

The ERC’s call for a reset has provoked strong reactions from the humanitarian community, with two main positions emerging: the improvers versus the reimaginers. Important questions remain about whose voices will be heard and influence this process, with Ground Truth Solutions already highlighting that the most critical voices – those of crisis-affected civilians – are being left out.

The need for difficult conversations on system reform and to address soaring appeals had been evident for some time. Yet as the system has been progressively overwhelmed by the scale of suffering and the insufficient political action to reduce the drivers, previous reform efforts barely made it to the country level before the next trickled down, if they made it at all. New and renewed commitments to centre protection, improve accountability to affected populations and locally led aid, alongside improved efficiency and effectiveness, have consistently failed to meet their ambitious goals. The humanitarian reset must learn from these past failures and address barriers to change if it is to meet the challenges ahead.

System resistance to change

Perhaps the most relevant lesson from the review experience is just how resistant the humanitarian system is to change. This is reinforced by the number of ‘findings and recommendations […] from 25 years ago [that] look quite similar to those of today’, illustrating how deeply ingrained power imbalances are within the system – and their ability to resist change. New threats from revisionist agendas antagonistic to protection can be observed in OCHA’s recent survey on US funding cuts, where the majority of respondents reported obstacles to protection and gender-based violence programming.

While the cluster approach introduced in 2006 made important progress in professionalising aid and reducing duplication, subsequent reforms were negotiated in a context divorced from geopolitical realities and entrenched power asymmetries, without understanding that the system and its institutions were unable – and in several instances – unwilling to change.

Crisis presents opportunity – will we be able to seize it?

What remains missing from the reset conversation is how this latest push for change can support more strategic responses for at-risk civilians – responses that understand civilian agency and the critical role individuals and communities play in their own protection. Accusations of double standards over the international community’s response to Ukraine compared to Gaza and Sudan have undermined legitimacy and trust in the current system; significant work will be required to regain it.

As external factors force system change, it remains unclear how the reset will avoid past reform mistakes and adapt in the face of existential threats that seek to remove it. The humanitarian system and the many conflicting interests within and behind it have until now largely circumvented previous reform measures. This shows that reset discussions must confront the dominant internal and external power structures if it is to succeed.

We know crises present both challenges and opportunities. While threats to principled humanitarian action and the wider system become more visible, less attention has been paid to how the system can adapt to deliver better on protection responsibilities. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and Fogbow illustrate the dystopian future for civilians and the humanitarian system if we fail to meet this moment.

How the reset can prioritise protection

1) Reinforce humanity as a shared universal value through demonstrating that all human life matters equally and neutrality does not mean indifference. More consistent responses for at-risk civilians are critical to counter narratives and disinformation strategies that seek to undermine and replace the current humanitarian system and the humanitarian principles that underpin it.

2) Centre people and prioritise proactive protection. Listen to and empower people as agents of their own protection – ‘nothing about us without us’. Proactive protection requires a fundamental shift from the current reactive approach that responds after a shock, to proactively preventing and mitigating the threats civilians face in conflict, drawing on a wider range of tools.

3) Empower national and local responders, guided by the principle ‘as local as possible, as international as necessary’. For protection specifically, international presence and attention can help reduce risks for civilians and local responders. As access constraints and funding cuts increase reliance on local responders, there is a responsibility to increase technical and financial support to help them manage the higher security risks they will face. Recognising national staff make up the overwhelming number of soaring aid worker death toll; see www.aidworkersecurity.org

4) Elevate protection at the system level. The level and nature of the current threats to civilians and the wider system require more than verbal commitments and ‘tinkering around the edges’. During the Whole of System Review, the single humanitarian agency idea was raised and debated. What seemed impossible then has resurfaced now due to the significant potential to reduce operational and staffing costs and institutional turf battles. It is however important to understand that what may appear straightforward in theory is more complex in practice, particularly in navigating agendas that seek to remove or replace the current system, and the perennial challenge of insulating humanitarian responses from political interests.

Conclusion

The reset presents a rare opportunity to shift system inertia on protecting civilians and adapt to increasing threats from a rapidly changing world order. Will we be able to seize this moment when civilians need us the most? The safety, dignity and lives of millions depend on our ability to get this right.

Amra Lee is a Protection Practitioner and PhD candidate researching protecting civilians in a changing world order at the Australian National University.

With thanks to Norah Niland, Gemma Davies and Felicity Gray for their feedback on earlier drafts of this article.