In October 2023, aid workers along the Gaza border were faced with an unbearable situation. Hundreds of trucks, loaded with desperately needed food, water, and medical supplies, were ready to deliver relief to families caught in the escalating conflict but, despite being just a few miles from those in need, they were powerless to move. Bombs had destroyed key roads, military checkpoints denied access, and political negotiations over humanitarian corridors dragged on without resolution. For weeks, the aid workers could do nothing but watch and wait as thousands of vulnerable people remained out of reach.
This situation is not a new challenge for the aid sector. We have seen similar scenarios play out in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo among many other countries. In each of these crises, aid workers have faced significant obstacles, from destroyed infrastructure to political red tape and protracted conflicts that prevent them from reaching those most in need.
See also: The future of humanitarian aid: Gaza’s influence | Opinion
These situations are not isolated – they offer a worrying indication of what future humanitarian crises might be like. And this future is not bright at all. As conflicts drag on, climate change worsens disasters, and political barriers increase, the key challenge will not simply be about how much aid we can provide but whether that aid can reach those in need. The future of humanitarian crises is an access crisis.
The growing access problem: humanitarian aid under fire
Access to humanitarian aid has always posed challenges but in recent years it has become a serious obstacle. Conflict zones in particular are increasingly weaponizing aid. Governments and non-state armed groups often use access to humanitarian aid as a tool of control. In conflict zones like Syria, Yemen, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and regions of Nigeria, Cameroon, and Burkina Faso, delivering humanitarian aid is fraught with challenges. Aid workers must navigate dangerous environments, particularly when operating in areas controlled by non-state armed groups where road blocks, high security risks, and unstable conditions create significant barriers. These conflict zones also involve checkpoints and administrative delays often being used as leverage by political factions, leaving vulnerable populations without essential support in some of the hardest-hit areas.
But conflict is not the only problem in aid being blocked. Natural disasters – driven by climate change –are exacerbating access issues. Unprecedented floods, wildfires, droughts, and hurricanes are leaving destruction in their wake, making it harder for aid to reach the affected areas. In South Sudan, seasonal floods isolate entire regions for months while Mozambique, after being hit by devastating cyclones, saw aid workers struggle to reach remote areas. In Bangladesh, rising sea levels and monsoon flooding disrupt aid routes, while the Philippines faces worsening typhoons, making it difficult to deliver essential supplies. Similarly, the Sahel region of Africa, plagued by worsening droughts and violence, faces immense difficulty in delivering aid to populations that are on the brink of starvation.
See also: World’s largest hunger crisis in South Sudan amidst a forgotten war
Beyond the immediate impacts of conflict and disasters, political and bureaucratic hurdles add yet another layer of complexity. Sometimes, governments intentionally restrict aid as a way to assert sovereignty or control the narrative of the crisis. Aid agencies are caught in webs of visa delays, stringent security protocols, and endless red tape, which slow response times to the point of ineffectiveness.
Physical constraints, especially in cities that are affected by conflict or natural disasters, such as narrow damaged roads, overcrowded neighborhoods, and informal housing areas make it hard to reach vulnerable populations. In some cases, the risk is further compounded by the possible presence of landmines, improvised explosive devices, explosive remnants of war, and unexploded ordnance. These hazards not only delay humanitarian response efforts but also endanger both aid workers and the communities in need of assistance.
The criminalization of aid is also a growing concern, with governments or non-state armed groups using legal frameworks to target those delivering life-saving assistance. In some countries, humanitarian workers have been prosecuted for rescuing refugees at sea and accused of aiding illegal migration. Furthermore, humanitarian organizations now face increased political restrictions, with governments selectively allowing aid based on geopolitical interests. Foreign aid is often restricted depending on which side of the conflict the organization is perceived to support with many governments accepting aid from only a few select countries and organizations thus limiting the global response.
Humanitarian workers themselves have also become targets of violence more often than ever before. Attacks on aid workers have surged, with many no longer receiving the respect or neutrality once afforded to them. In places like Occupied Palestinian Territories, Ukraine, Yemen, Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, and Sudan, humanitarian convoys and workers are increasingly being attacked, kidnapped, or killed, with little protection. The once-held notion of neutrality in humanitarian work is eroding as in many cases aid workers are seen as political actors rather than neutral providers of relief.
As these challenges grow, delivering aid is increasingly under threat both from violence and restrictive policies leaving more people are out of reach. From targeted attacks to bureaucratic red tape, the ability to provide essential life-saving support is being hindered, delayed, or even criminalized. These barriers are placing humanitarian efforts at serious risk, leaving millions of vulnerable people without the help they urgently need.
What needs to change
The future of humanitarian aid will demand more than merely financial resources or technical innovation – it will require a fundamental shift in how aid access is approached, leveraging data and experiences, as well as a shift in modes of operation. Diplomatic efforts within the international community must prioritize the establishment of humanitarian corridors, zones where aid can be delivered without interference. International laws protecting aid workers and guaranteeing safe passage need to be reinforced with stronger commitments from global leaders.
NGOs must also become more adaptable and be prepared to redesign their mode of operation. Working closely with local partners who understand the terrain and can navigate political and cultural barriers will be vital. Success has already been seen with localized approaches: in Syria and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, for example, many aid organizations rely on networks of local organizations and national staff to reach areas that international workers and organizations cannot. In Turkey and Myanmar, local NGOs and community groups have become the primary means of delivering aid.
Beyond these localized efforts, broader advocacy and international collaboration are key. Humanitarian organizations must work together to exert ‘soft power’ – building diplomatic pressure through alliances, advocacy campaigns, and negotiations that push for unimpeded access. International players such as the UN, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the European Union, and the African Union, alongside major NGOs, have an essential role in using their collective influence to demand better access and hold states accountable for denying aid. In South Sudan, Iraq and Nigeria, international coalitions have been successful in opening up access routes through negotiations with non-state armed groups and governments to ensure humanitarian corridors for food and medical supplies.
Advocacy efforts must also be directed to reshape global policies that govern humanitarian aid. The use of diplomatic tools, such as sanctions relief in exchange for aid access, or creating ‘humanitarian ceasefires’ in conflict zones, can offer temporary but vital windows for aid delivery. Examples can be seen in Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and the Central African Republic, where coordinated advocacy efforts have led to improved, albeit temporary, access.
The future of humanitarian response will rely on this type of diplomacy, soft power, and collective action to overcome the increasingly complex access barriers posed by both conflict and climate change. Only by working together, pooling resources, and leveraging influence can aid organizations ensure that they reach those most in need.
A crisis of humanity
Ultimately, the access crisis is a crisis for humanity. The people trapped in these unreachable regions are not statistics or news reports; they are families waiting for help that may never come. For Syrian families on the border, the Rohingya in Myanmar, the displaced Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the isolated communities in South Sudan, the millions displaced in Sudan, and those at risk of starvation in Ethiopia’s Tigray region, the difference between life and death is often a matter of miles. But those miles are blocked by conflict, bureaucracy, and indifference. One of the steps that could be taken to strategically address this challenge is to rethink the operational model, focusing on localization and strengthening advocacy and alliances, both at the country level and on regional and global scales.
The future of humanitarianism depends not just on what we can offer, but on how far we can go. If we fail to address the growing access crisis, we risk leaving millions beyond the reach of help. And in those moments when aid is most needed, the world will find that it is not about the resources we have, but about the walls we have failed to break down.
