Two challenges to overcome for the WASH water-sanitation-hygiene sector.
The situation of the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) sector in humanitarian contexts is both critical and essential. It is critical because the sector has been severely impacted by the cuts in humanitarian funding initiated by the United States in March 2025, which were quickly followed by most historical donors . It is essential to understand and resolve because this sector is one of the four sectors defined by the United Nations as “life-saving,” along with the health, protection, and food aid sectors. Along with these other sectors, it is also critical because of the scale of the needs it represents in terms of coverage. Indeed, if we consider the figures from 2024 ( i.e., before the cuts and alterations brought about by the humanitarian reform), there were currently 340 million people in need in approximately sixty countries worldwide. Moreover, this figure has never stopped increasing in the last ten years and has doubled between 2019 and 2024.
However, the proportion of the population in need of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) at that time represented 170 million individuals, or approximately 50% of overall multisectoral needs. In short, the WASH sector alone accounts for half of these needs, in terms of the number of people receiving assistance .<sup> 6 </sup> The WASH sector is also one of the sectors most directly needed following a crisis (lack of water leads to death within hours) and is directly linked to the control of communicable diseases that emerge opportunistically in emergency contexts (for example, cholera). Furthermore, it is an essential prerequisite for any other area of humanitarian response: nutrition, health, education, protection, etc. How can one imagine a health center functioning without water, or an epidemic control program targeting a population that lacks access to basic hygiene?
Even before the drastic funding cuts to development agencies in the Global North during 2025, the WASH sector was already severely constrained and underfunded. The annual budget requested through UN humanitarian appeals hovered around $4 billion, roughly one-third of the amount requested by the health sector. Moreover, this requested amount is only allocated on average to around one-third of the target (37% in 2024 was considered a standard year, while it was only 6.6% at mid-year in 2025).
One might question both the low overall amount of the humanitarian WASH budget, given the immense needs, and the regular and massive underfunding of this allocation. The reasons are primarily institutional: the WASH sector, at least in its UN definition, is recent, as is its overall governance (it suffered until 2023 from a lack of dedicated UN conferences). These reasons are also structural: because the WASH sector is integrated into many other, better-funded sectors (such as health or education), it has become marginalized as a distinct area of intervention.
Finally, these reasons are linked to the capacity of UN agencies and other WASH actors to capture a humanitarian windfall that is always decreasing, or at best stagnant.
The cuts to development aid, enacted in the first quarter of 2025, marked a turning point in the financing of the WASH sector. These cuts were motivated by multiple reasons, the issue of the efficiency of development aid and the diversion of funds by an ever-increasing administrative machine having been the subject of analyses and articles 8 .
These cuts triggered a near-unanimous decline in contributions from major donors, in a context of budgetary recession, a rightward shift in European and American policies, and a deprioritization of key current issues (such as European defense). Above all, they resulted in 9 [ unclear] and an impact that ultimately translates into human lives sacrificed 10 [ unclear ].
In addition to these cuts, particularly from the United States, there has been the promotion of a humanitarian support policy that directly questions humanitarian principles 11 .
In parallel, and directly linked to the cuts in Development Aid, the Humanitarian Reset was implemented, with its pros and cons. The advantage of this ongoing reform, under the auspices of the UNOCHA Humanitarian Coordinator , lies in the desire to improve the efficiency of a complex UN (and other) model, one that has been largely uninvolved in the reforms proposed at the Grand Bargain in Istanbul in 2016, and which is, above all, exhausted and lacking political credibility, as evidenced by the crises in Gaza and Ukraine, where realpolitik has replaced international law with complete impunity. The disadvantage of this reform, at least in the short term, is the dismantling of existing humanitarian coordination structures, even in contexts where coordinating actors is an absolute prerequisite for an effective, comprehensive, and efficient response (Nigeria being a striking example).
So, what can be done in the face of this bleak picture for the WASH sector, but also more broadly for other sectors involved in the humanitarian response?
First and foremost, it is crucial to understand that the humanitarian project as it has been conceived and built over the past three decades is nearing its end, for better or for worse. The best aspect is the will, and above all the operational necessity, to deploy aid primarily through (and not via) local partners, but this requires that these partners have the capacity, financial resources, and access to humanitarian zones. The worst aspect is having to respond to growing humanitarian needs with substantially reduced financial resources, focusing on extreme needs<sup> 14</sup> at the risk of excluding those who are not considered an absolute priority <sup>15</sup> . Traditional humanitarian organizations and their UN partners will have to adapt and revisit their response strategies, relying more heavily on preparedness plans ideally led by the states themselves and developing strategic partnerships with local organizations.
Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge the progress made by the WASH sector in its overall governance over the past fifteen years, notably with the appointment of Ms. Retno Marsudi as Special Envoy for Water in November 2023, which coincided with the re-establishment of regular UN conferences on the sector. This opportunity for improved governance should be seized to highlight the close link between humanitarian and development efforts, as championed by the WASH Roadmap 16 initiative project leading up to the 2026 UN Water Conference.
Also, if the climate crisis is a critical determinant of humanitarian issues 17 , it also highlights, after nearly thirty COP 18 of pseudo absence 19 , the growing importance of the WASH sector in mitigation and adaptation strategies (including the humanitarian response).
A joint advocacy effort for humanitarian WASH and its funding is essential. The WASH Roadmap collective offers any organization the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment by signing the Humanitarian WASH Call To Action 20 , and to hold states accountable.
The 2026 United Nations Water Conference, to be held in the United Arab Emirates at the end of 2026, includes an interactive dialogue 21 that will highlight humanitarian challenges and potential solutions; this is Interactive Dialogue No. 1, “Water for People.” This conference will be initiated by a preparatory meeting to be held in Dakar on January 26 and 27, 2026, to which all stakeholders are invited to raise awareness and propose actions 22 .
In conclusion, five key areas could be prioritized:
1 – Securing humanitarian funding that is commensurate with the scale of needs, accessible, flexible, and, above all, attainable by local actors to ensure that aid reaches people in critical situations in terms of nutrition, food assistance, health, and, of course, WASH (water, sanitation, and hygiene). Supporting local organizations’ access to UN Pooled Funds and other funding mechanisms, accompanied by harmonization and simplification of donor rules and an integrated risk management approach, is crucial in this regard. Increasing the humanitarian budget within a shrinking development aid budget is also essential .
2 – Promote operational and advocacy consortia – including and, ideally, led by local partners and networks in the Global South. This implies a prior strengthening of these actors and the simplification of due diligence measures, so as not to penalize local actors on the front line of the humanitarian response (still within the logic of risk sharing).
3 – Revisit coordination platforms by including local actors up to the highest level (Humanitarian Country Teams), while preserving the operational and technical quality of the response, ensured by UN agencies and international actors, such as international NGOs. This Local Coordination approach can involve local actors and authorities or civil society, as is already the case in Mali. This requires strengthening the complementarity of actors and their operational accountability by considering communities as integral components of operational and financial decisions that affect them. This accountability extends to the entire humanitarian response cycle, beginning with the joint analysis and validation of needs, and promoting the ICVA models of complementarity at the global and regional levels.
4 – Emphasize anticipatory approaches, Nexus models (including financial) and the integration of the various humanitarian sectors, in order to provide a predictable, sustainable response that covers all the needs of the affected populations.
5 – Finally, redefine the added value of international humanitarian organizations as direct responders when local actors are unable to act, lack access, or when the level of crisis (volume of needs) demands it. The role of international NGOs in representing or supporting local actors in technical groups and highlighting field situations should be considered.
Jean Lapegue.
1 The sector is named WASH for Water Sanitation and Hygiene.
2 in June, The OECD projected a 9 to 17% drop in official development assistance (ODA) in 2025: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/06/cuts-in-official-development-assistance_e161f0c5/full-report.html
3. With the Health, Protection and Food Aid sectors.
4 Sectoral humanitarian coordination platforms under the auspices of the United Nations.
5 PIN (People In Need).
6 It should be noted that approximately one third of people in humanitarian need are people who have suffered forced displacement, with 110 million in 2024 (these are mainly internally displaced persons due to conflicts and natural or climate disasters).
7 As a reminder, the Sustainable Development Goal dedicated to the sector, therefore No. 6, was created in 2015 and the Right to Water was only recognized as a Human Right in 2010.
8 Reference: The Economist, 06/03/2025.
9 US funding represented 42% of the overall humanitarian budget in 2024.
10 Of the 21 country offices monitored by Action Against Hunger France, 648,672 people were deprived of WASH humanitarian support due to these cuts in 2025. A Lancet study from July 2025 projected that USAID cuts to essential humanitarian sectors could lead to more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million children under 5.
11 The core of these principles being: Humanity, Independence, Neutrality.
12 Tom Fletcher.
13 The main orientations of this conference already included localization, aid efficiency and accountability.
14 Approximately 100 million people in 2025.
15 That is around 200 million people in 2025.
17 For information, the number of internally displaced persons linked to climate crises increased by 29% between 2023 and 2024 compared to 10% for displaced persons linked to conflict situations.
18th Conference of the Parties, meetings of member states around the climate issue.
19 Until COP28, the theme of Water was overshadowed in the Climate COPs by the energy issue.
20 Already signed by 231 organizations and 4 Member States. Link to sign the Call: Link
21 Dialogue No. 1: Water For People / Water for the People.
22 For more information or if you would like to join our humanitarian advocacy efforts at this preparatory conference, please contact washadvocacy@actioncontrelafaim.org
23 Area Based Coordination.
Jean Lapegue
Jean Lapegue has been Head of the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Department at Action Against Hunger UK and then France since 2003. He has 26 years of experience in the field of humanitarian WASH, primarily with the NGO Action Against Hunger. He also has four years of experience as Head of the Hydrology Unit at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of the Territorial Collectivity of Mayotte (1992-1996).
His field experience, spanning more than ten years, mainly covers conflict and post-conflict contexts, where he was exposed to supporting displaced populations: Sri Lanka (1999-2001) and Afghanistan (2001-2003).
Jean Lapegue is a member of various decision-making bodies and humanitarian coordination groups, such as the Global WASH Cluster and the Global Taskforce for Cholera Control. He served as Governor of the World Water Council (2015-2022) and was a member of the Global WASH Cluster’s Strategic Group. He represents Action Against Hunger in various coordination bodies, including the French Water Partnership, the WASH Roadmap, and the Water Coalition.
His training is a doctoral thesis in environmental hydrology (1999) and he is involved in several research projects, has co-supervised several doctoral theses and is the author or co-author of numerous books and publications and about fifty articles on the Water sector in crisis context.
He teaches humanitarian strategy and coordination architecture within the framework of the Humanitarian WASH Master’s program run by the 2iE Regional University (Burkina Faso).