Tauhidur Rahman: Across the world, the demand for humanitarian assistance and development support is growing, yet the resources available to meet these needs are becoming increasingly constrained. Conflicts are displacing millions, climate change is intensifying existing vulnerabilities, and economic uncertainty is pushing more people towards poverty and insecurity. At the same time, major donor countries are scaling back development and humanitarian assistance, forcing governments and aid organisations to reconsider how essential services and support for vulnerable communities can be sustained. This widening gap between growing needs and shrinking international resources is emerging as one of the defining challenges for the global development and humanitarian sector.
The changing priorities of major donor countries are already having a profound impact on the global development and humanitarian financing landscape. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), official development assistance (ODA) provided by its Development Assistance Committee members fell by 23.1 per cent in real terms in 2025, reaching USD 174.3 billion—the largest annual decline on record. Humanitarian assistance experienced an even steeper reduction of 35.8 per cent, while US development assistance alone dropped by 56.9 per cent. These figures point to more than a temporary adjustment in aid budgets. They reflect a combination of domestic fiscal pressures, changing political priorities and increased emphasis on national security and defence spending in several donor countries. The consequences are particularly concerning for countries and communities that depend on international support to respond to prolonged crises, address structural vulnerabilities and sustain essential development services. At a time when conflict, displacement and climate-related emergencies continue to intensify humanitarian needs, the contraction in available financing risks widening the gap between what vulnerable populations need and what can realistically be funded.
For Bangladesh, the implications of this changing global landscape are significant. International development assistance has long contributed to the country’s progress in areas such as poverty reduction, health, education, climate resilience and humanitarian response. Any contraction or growing uncertainty in external financing therefore raises important questions about the continuity of development programmes and the country’s ability to address emerging needs. Bangladesh has made considerable progress in socioeconomic development, but these gains remain vulnerable to economic shocks, climate risks, unemployment and persistent inequality. As international funding becomes more constrained and competitive, the challenge is not simply to attract more assistance, but to build a more resilient and diversified financing system that can sustain development priorities and respond to the needs of the most vulnerable, even when external support becomes less predictable.
Bangladesh’s own experience with foreign development financing offers an important perspective. Data from the NGO Affairs Bureau show that foreign grants disbursed through registered NGOs stood at approximately USD 955 million in FY2018–19, before declining to around USD 655 million in FY2023–24. The figure subsequently recovered, reaching approximately USD 838 million in FY2025–26. While this recovery is encouraging, it does not necessarily indicate that the country’s development financing challenges have been resolved. Aggregate funding figures alone do not reveal whether resources are keeping pace with inflation, reaching underserved communities or addressing the country’s changing development priorities. Exchange-rate fluctuations, rising implementation costs and the sectoral and geographical distribution of funding all influence the actual value and reach of these resources.
While foreign grant disbursements through NGOs have shown some recovery, the trend in newly approved projects points to a less encouraging picture of the funding pipeline. A recent Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS) analysis, drawing on NGO Affairs Bureau data, indicates that the number of newly approved projects declined from 2,063 in FY2021–22 to 1,584 in FY2025–26. This suggests that the recovery in aggregate grant disbursements has not necessarily been accompanied by a comparable recovery in new project approvals, highlighting the uncertainty facing organisations that depend on external grants to sustain their development and humanitarian programmes. Smaller organisations with limited access to alternative sources of income may be particularly exposed to these changes.
This distinction matters. An increase in the total volume of foreign grants does not automatically translate into greater support for every community, sector or geographical area. Nor does it guarantee that available resources are adequate to meet the country’s growing development and humanitarian needs. The more important question is whether financing is reaching the people and places where it is needed most.
Bangladesh’s poverty situation makes this question particularly urgent. According to the World Bank’s Bangladesh Poverty and Equity Assessment 2025, the national poverty rate declined from 37.1 per cent in 2010 to 18.7 per cent in 2022. However, the pace of poverty reduction slowed considerably in the later years, and the World Bank projected that the rate could rise to 21 per cent in 2025. It also estimated that approximately 62 million people remain vulnerable to falling back into poverty following economic shocks, illness or other disruptions. This suggests that the challenge is not limited to lifting people out of poverty; it is equally about protecting those who have escaped poverty from falling back into it.
The geographical distribution of poverty adds another dimension to the challenge. The Poverty Map of Bangladesh 2022, developed by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics in collaboration with the World Bank and the World Food Programme, demonstrates significant disparities across districts and upazilas. Areas in the northern region, particularly Kurigram, as well as parts of the coastal belt and the Chittagong Hill Tracts, continue to experience persistent poverty and multiple forms of vulnerability. These communities face limited livelihood opportunities, seasonal unemployment, climate-induced displacement, inadequate access to essential services and weak economic resilience. However, there remains considerable scope to strengthen the integration of information on local development needs, government investment, external assistance and NGO-led programmes. A more comprehensive national picture would help policymakers and development actors better understand how resources are distributed across different geographical areas and whether existing investments adequately correspond to local needs.
The Rohingya refugee crisis illustrates another dimension of this financing challenge. Since 2017, Bangladesh has demonstrated remarkable generosity in hosting a large displaced population from Myanmar. The international community has supported the response through successive Joint Response Plans, bringing together UN agencies, international and national NGOs and other partners. However, as the crisis continues into 2026, sustaining the response has become increasingly challenging amid growing humanitarian needs and tightening international resources. The 2026 Joint Response Plan requires USD 710.5 million to reach up to 1.56 million people, including Rohingya refugees and members of the Bangladeshi host communities, out of an estimated 1.89 million people in need. This represents a 26 per cent reduction in the appeal compared with 2025 and reflects a more prioritised response focused on sustaining essential assistance.
The challenge is therefore not simply how to sustain the Rohingya response, but how to ensure that a prolonged refugee crisis does not overshadow the needs of other vulnerable populations across Bangladesh. Communities affected by river erosion, recurrent floods, cyclones, poverty and climate-induced displacement also require sustained investment. Supporting refugees and supporting vulnerable host and other communities should not be treated as competing priorities. Both are essential responsibilities that require complementary and adequately resourced financing arrangements.
Bangladesh’s changing political and economic environment further reinforces the need to rethink its development financing approach. The political transition since 2024 and the subsequent formation of an elected government in 2026 have brought renewed expectations of institutional reform, economic recovery, employment generation and improved governance. These are legitimate priorities. However, development and humanitarian needs must remain central to national planning. Poverty, unemployment, displacement and unequal access to essential services are not merely social concerns; they have direct implications for economic productivity, social cohesion and long-term stability. Investment in vulnerable communities should therefore be recognised as an investment in the country’s economic and social resilience.
One opportunity that remains relatively underexplored in Bangladesh’s development debate is the mobilisation of domestic resources, particularly through the corporate sector. Bangladesh has a substantial and growing private sector, including banks, financial institutions, telecommunications companies, manufacturing industries and large business conglomerates. Many of these organisations already invest in education, healthcare, disaster relief, environmental protection and community development through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programmes. However, such investments are often individually managed and guided by corporate priorities, with scope to strengthen their alignment with broader national and local development needs.
The scale of corporate social investment is worth examining. According to Bangladesh Bank data, scheduled banks spent approximately BDT 924 crore on CSR activities in 2023, compared with around BDT 1,129 crore in 2022. This expenditure declined further to approximately BDT 616 crore in 2024. Although these figures represent only the banking sector and do not capture the wider corporate contribution, they illustrate the potential for domestic social investment as well as the need to explore more predictable and strategic approaches to mobilising such resources.
The question is whether Bangladesh can move towards a more structured system of social investment. Corporate contributions should not be viewed as a replacement for government responsibility or international development assistance. Rather, they should become an additional and complementary source of financing that supports clearly identified development and humanitarian priorities.
This calls for a broader national conversation about establishing a National Development and Humanitarian Financing Framework. Such a framework could bring together government allocations, international development assistance, corporate social investment, philanthropic contributions and other domestic financing opportunities under a common set of priorities. It would require a multi-stakeholder platform involving government institutions, national and international NGOs, UN agencies, private sector representatives and independent accountability actors. The objective should not be to centralise all available resources in a single government-controlled fund, but to improve coordination, transparency, geographical targeting and accountability across different financing channels.
A critical part of this approach would be the development of an integrated national needs and financing database. At present, government agencies, NGOs, UN organisations and development partners often plan and implement projects through separate systems. While coordination mechanisms exist, there is still considerable scope to strengthen the integration of programme information, geographical needs assessments and financing data. In the absence of a comprehensive and regularly updated overview of needs, ongoing interventions and available financing, it can be difficult for different actors to identify opportunities for complementarity, recognise potential overlaps and address geographical or sectoral gaps. A shared national platform could help strengthen coordination, improve resource allocation and ensure that communities with significant unmet needs receive greater attention.
The government could also explore appropriate policy incentives for corporate social investment, including tax incentives for verified contributions to nationally identified development priorities, transparent reporting requirements and independent auditing. Any mandatory corporate contribution or levy, however, would require careful legal, fiscal and economic assessment. The objective should be to encourage sustainable social investment without creating unnecessary regulatory burdens or weakening the independence of civil society organisations.
Ultimately, Bangladesh must recognise that the future of its development cannot depend solely on the willingness and financial capacity of external donors. International assistance will remain indispensable, particularly in responding to humanitarian emergencies, addressing climate vulnerability and supporting communities facing structural disadvantages. But the changing global financing environment has made one reality increasingly clear: relying predominantly on external resources is not a sustainable long-term strategy.
The debate must therefore move beyond how much money Bangladesh receives from international donors. It must also ask how effectively the country mobilises its own resources, how fairly those resources are distributed and whether public, private and international investments are working towards shared national priorities.
Bangladesh does not necessarily need another institution or another layer of bureaucracy. What it needs is a more coherent financing architecture—one that connects resources with needs, aligns different actors around common priorities and ensures that development investments reach those who are most likely to be left behind. The real measure of development financing should not simply be the volume of money mobilised, but the extent to which it improves people’s lives, strengthens resilience and reduces inequality.
Moving beyond foreign aid does not mean moving away from international solidarity. It means building the national capacity to complement that solidarity with domestic resources, stronger institutions and a shared commitment to ensuring that no community is left behind.

The author is Humanitarian Professionals, and Social Researcher from Dhaka, Bangladesh. Email: tauhid.bd2010@gmail.com