June 2, 2026 — David Miliband, CEO of the IRC, spoke at the launch of the Johns Hopkins Center for Humanitarian Health report on health, conflict, and forced displacement. His message was clear: this report arrives at a crucial moment. Right now, communities in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda are facing a new wave of Ebola, showing just how intertwined health issues are with conflict and displacement.
Conflict disrupts everything. Food production falters, markets collapse, and healthcare becomes nearly impossible to access. This leads to increased hunger, malnutrition, and gaps in vaccination programs. Maternal and child health services suffer greatly. As we see rising needs in places like Sudan and Gaza, funding for humanitarian aid has dramatically dropped. In fact, global health funding plummeted from around $80 billion in 2021 to just about $40 billion, a 15-year low. Many low-income countries also find they have barely enough resources for pandemic preparedness.
In Sudan, vaccination rates for children against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis have fallen from 90% to roughly 50% since civil war broke out. This decline has contributed to preventable diseases spreading rapidly. Malnutrition affects many displaced children, causing avoidable illness and death, while critical reproductive healthcare services remain disrupted.
The report suggests we’re at a critical juncture for health systems impacted by conflict. With around 60 wars ongoing, a climate crisis worsening, and civilians facing increased danger, this situation is becoming the new norm. We can either work to reverse this trend or risk it worsening.
Real change relies on political action. While humanitarian aid can ease suffering, it’s political decisions that truly stop violence. The report accurately addresses issues like impunity in war-torn regions. However, it also emphasizes action that can be taken now.
For too long, conversations around humanitarian aid have been two-sided—balancing global standards with local needs, or humanitarian versus development aid. Yet, those who need help most often don’t have a seat at the table. The report could change that narrative. There’s a clear need to distinguish between acute crises, protracted conflicts, and areas where displaced people can be served by local systems. Acknowledging these differences can drastically change how aid operates.
In each of these contexts, the participants, whether local nonprofits, UN agencies, or global organizations, must play different roles. The essential element missing is the people affected by these crises. Accountability must extend to them, not just to government leaders.
One proposed solution is pooling resources and offering cash-based assistance. This could lower costs, empower communities, and attract more funding, particularly in stable areas. The IRC supports refined outcomes and better transparency in reporting on who delivers aid and at what cost.
At the IRC, we measure success by putting clients first. This approach challenges existing systems. For example, we believe in rewarding proactive action instead of delayed responses. Support should focus on evidence-based interventions during crises and allocate resources where they’re most needed. More than half of the world’s extreme poor live in conflict-affected areas, with life expectancy about seven years shorter than in other developing countries.
Here are three notable examples of how IRC is innovating under challenging conditions:
- In 2022, we launched the REACH vaccination program in places like Chad and Sudan. Despite challenges, we managed to deliver 30 million vaccines, increasing efficiency by reducing costs from $3.75 to under $1 per dose.
- We’re anticipating climate-related crises before they escalate, ensuring communities receive critical water sanitation supplies ahead of time.
- We’re testing an AI tool that helps diagnose Mpox remotely, allowing frontline workers to distinguish it from other diseases quickly and effectively.
These initiatives demonstrate our focus on collaboration among local and global partners. It’s not just about delivering aid—it’s about integrating resources to create lasting solutions. Writing reports is tough, but moving ideas into action is even more challenging.
Change takes time, but the vulnerable cannot afford to wait. Despite a $400 million funding cut last year, we’re committed to assessing our impact and fostering innovation. The path forward requires a focus on effective outcomes for those we serve, pushing against the tendency to overlook marginalized groups.
In essence, this report highlights the urgent need for change in humanitarian action. We must work towards ending the neglect and suffering caused by conflict. For more insights, you can visit the full report from the [Johns Hopkins Center for Humanitarian Health](https://publichealth.jhu.edu/humanitarian-health-center) for further information.
