Impacts in Mali

Mali is experiencing a severe and protracted humanitarian crisis driven by conflict, climate shocks and economic instability (OCHA, 2025c). Ongoing violence between armed groups, military forces and local militias has internally displaced more than 400,000 people, while insecurity continues to disrupt livelihoods, food production and access to basic services (ICRC, 2022). The country is also heavily impacted by climate change, with prolonged droughts, erratic rainfall and floods affecting agriculture and worsening food shortages. As a result, 6.4 million people, just under 30% of the population, were in urgent need of humanitarian assistance in 2024. Acute food insecurity and malnutrition rates are rising, particularly in the northern and central regions (OCHA, 2025c).

Mali has faced an underfunded crisis response for years, with only 39% of the required US$702 million covered in coordinated funding in 2024 (totalling US$276 million). Funding increased until 2022, peaking at US$402 million, but support has since declined. The Malian humanitarian response has relied heavily on funding from the United States (46% of total funding), with 69% of US funds allocated to the public health sector.

KII with local actors and FGDs with local communities

The availability of humanitarian aid has shifted significantly in Mali, particularly following recent funding reductions. Support across food, health, education and basic needs has declined noticeably – all forms of assistance have been impacted, particularly for IDPs.

Respondents reported that health programmes, including vaccinations and treatment for malnutrition, have been suspended, as have critical outreach services for pregnant women and children. The education sector has experienced school closures without prior notice or coordination.

IDPs noted a decline or complete absence of humanitarian assistance. In particular, they criticised the delays in issuing IDP registration cards, which consequently restricts access to support. Communities echoed concerns about halted nutrition services and the disappearance of previously regular food distributions, underlining a growing sense of abandonment.

Both perspectives highlight limited communication around the suspension of aid. Local actors criticised the top-down nature of programmatic decisions, which were often communicated late or indirectly, sometimes even through rumours in the community. Community members similarly reported that they have received no updates or explanations about the reduction in aid services.

Population groups affected most by interrupted humanitarian activities

Aid cuts have had immediate and visible consequences on vulnerable populations. Health centres face severe shortages of medicine and nutrition kits. IDPs are experiencing worsening food insecurity, and women, children and the elderly are impacted most. This has translated into a visible rise in childhood malnutrition, frequent health issues and further strains on local health infrastructure.

Communities emphasised the direct human toll of the funding cuts, especially on women caregivers and families without male breadwinners. Both local actors and communities emphasised that women face heightened burdens from their reduced access to health and nutrition services and also because they often remain in their communities to care for children while men leave in search of work. Women-headed households are particularly affected by the loss of support programmes, facing added emotional and economic strain.

Respondents also agreed that children are severely affected. Community members focused on immediate health consequences, while local actors underlined broader effects, including interrupted vaccination campaigns, shortages of school supplies and reduced access to education. Concern is growing for children’s basic needs.

Local actors expanded on the impact of cuts on other vulnerable groups, including the elderly, people living with disability, victims of explosive remnants and unemployed household heads.

Coping mechanisms and emerging risks

Precarious coping mechanisms are being used in response to the sudden drop in humanitarian assistance, including informal labour, debt and migration. Local actors emphasised structural implications and long-term risks, while communities highlighted day-to-day survival and local solidarity efforts.

Both local actors and communities mentioned a rise in informal, often precarious income-generating activities. Men are reportedly turning to small-scale construction or petty trade, while displaced women engage in wood gathering, herb collection or domestic work in host households to secure food.

Respondents emphasised the importance of social support networks, including inter-household lending and small-scale community fundraising. However, community members noted that while these mechanisms exist, they remain insufficient to meet needs. FGD participants, particularly women from host communities, have received limited support from local authorities since the withdrawal of NGOs.

Local actors offered a broader perspective on economic collapse, noting an increase in borrowing from microfinance institutions and between individuals. This reflects mounting financial pressure. They also described distress migration, both internally and to neighbouring countries, noting the implications of this exodus – heightened social inequality, rising youth delinquency and the psychological impact on families left behind.

Local actors flagged tensions linked to resource use too. For instance, women who collect wood or work in stone quarries often do so on land that does not belong to them, creating friction with host communities. Community members mentioned that local males in one site have tried to mobilise emergency funds, while women in host communities stressed the lack of any official or governmental support. These different perspectives between genders and roles within the community adds nuance to how support, or the lack of it, is experienced and interpreted locally.

KII with humanitarian actors and national authorities

The US funding cuts, alongside broader reductions in donor support over recent years, have had a profound and visible impact on humanitarian operations in Mali. Essential services have declined, sometimes mid-cycle with poor communication or coordination.

National authorities and humanitarian actors shared the assessment that US and broader funding cuts have impacted the humanitarian response, albeit offering different points of emphasis. Both groups reported sharp reductions in the health, food security, nutrition, protection and WASH sectors, with disruptions having been especially severe in the northern and central regions of Ménaka, Gao and Timbuktu. There, national authorities noted that populations are ‘left to themselves’ to face a convergence of displacement, insecurity and climate-related shocks.

A common concern across both groups was the abrupt interruption of services mid-cycle, including within maternal care, nutrition support and food distributions, without clear communication or handover plans. For humanitarian actors, this has led to the sudden dismissal of local staff and a breakdown in internal organisational coherence; for national authorities, it represents not only a loss of services but also an erosion of state-led coordination and national ownership of the response.

National authorities and humanitarian actors gave notable emphasis to the impact these changes have had on community relations. Key informants repeatedly described a decrease in trust between aid providers and local populations, particularly in areas where engagement and consultation had previously been central to programme delivery. While humanitarian actors framed this loss of trust as a programmatic challenge that would take time to rebuild, national authorities saw it as a symptom of more profound structural inequalities in how aid is conceptualised and delivered, with insufficient accountability to national systems and institutions.

Coordination challenges featured prominently in both narratives, although they were described in distinct ways. Humanitarian actors described reduced intersectoral collaboration, fragmented multisectoral approaches, and diminished visibility in regions where partners have withdrawn. National authorities emphasised the marginalisation of national authorities from coordination platforms, the suspension of joint assessments, and the weakening of the state in humanitarian decisions.

KII with humanitarian actors and national authorities

Strategic shifts and planning gaps

Priorities have been shifted in response to the funding cuts, with significant repercussions across planning, coordination and governance structures. The humanitarian system has reportedly undergone a rapid narrowing of scope, with a reorientation towards ‘life-saving’ interventions in highly critical areas.

Humanitarian actors and national authorities both reported strategic shifts and reprioritisation in the crisis response in Mali. Some preventive and community-based programmes, such as early nutrition, recovery and cash transfers, had been mainly suspended at the time of data collection. However, respondents did not confirm if these interruptions directly link to reductions in funding or the subsequent reprioritisation exercises conducted at the response/organisation level.

Both groups noted the closure of regional offices and the withdrawal of assistance from areas like Tombouctou, Ménaka and central Mali – regions previously covered by ongoing projects. National authorities described learning of project closures through communities themselves. The reallocation of remaining resources has also impacted human resources. Humanitarian actors reported significant staff reductions, with national personnel and mobile teams affected most. National authorities echoed this, highlighting that the cuts disproportionately targeted community-facing capacities, undermining networks that are essential for outreach and resilience programming.

Interviewees were also concerned about the weakening of multisectoral assessments and coordination frameworks. Humanitarian actors focused on reduced visibility in non-prioritised areas and increasing competition among actors. Meanwhile, national authorities noted a broader governance failure, where humanitarian assistance remains largely distributive, with limited transition towards integrated or resilience-based models.

Operational adjustments and delivery modalities

Humanitarians have made reactive operational shifts, driven by immediate financial constraints. This has meant closing local bases, halting projects mid-cycle and reassigning or releasing staff. Multisectoral programming has shifted to single-sector interventions. Collaboration with national NGOs and inter-agency partnerships have also suffered.

Funding cuts have led to reactive operational decisions around office closures, project suspensions and cancelled contracts. Where possible, some humanitarian actors have adopted low-profile continuity strategies, such as staff redeployment, geographic concentration and downsizing of activities. However, these approaches are not universally feasible. Respondents reported numerous instances of abrupt dismissals, often of national staff, without clear communication, psychosocial support or a structured offboarding process.

At a strategic level, humanitarian actors noted a widespread shift from multisectoral programming to narrowly focused interventions, with many agencies converting integrated or resilience-oriented projects into single-sector responses. Most commonly, these centre on food security or nutrition. Preventive and community-based components have been largely suspended. Only humanitarian actors elaborated on this shift in programming scope; national authorities instead commented on external manifestations, such as loss of coverage or community-level service gaps.

At the time of data collection, the strain on partnerships was visible in the reduction of collaborations with national NGOs. This was attributed mainly to shrinking operational budgets and a diminished ability to monitor remote or decentralised activities. As a result, some localisation efforts were described as having stalled, especially in peripheral areas. Humanitarian actors also raised concerns about the internal implications of these adjustments.

The contraction in operations has also affected inter-agency collaboration, according to key stakeholders. Within some clusters, humanitarian actors noted a sharp drop in technical exchanges, collective learning and sectoral innovation due to the reduced number of active partners. They tied this loss of collaborative capacity to both shrinking local presence and the fragmentation of previously integrated strategies.

KII with humanitarian actors and national authorities

Humanitarian actors view the 2025 re-prioritisation process as reactive and centralised, driven by the current financial landscape. National authorities frame it more starkly as a paradigm shift over time.

To humanitarian actors and national authorities the operational re-prioritisation processes represent a significant shift in how humanitarian needs are assessed and addressed in Mali. However, each group emphasised different concerns and perspectives. Among humanitarians it is reactive and centralised; among national authorities it is part of a broader transformation in approach. They contrasted the more comprehensive scope seen in the 2023 HPC with the progressively narrower focus of the 2024 HPC and the early 2025 reprioritisation exercise.

Both sets of actors also described this shift as having significant implications for coordination and participation. While humanitarian actors emphasised the reduced room for negotiation or local-level influence, national authorities highlighted the increasing reliance on parallel systems of decision-making that lack institutional anchorage. Despite slight differences in terminology, however, both described the current prioritisation logic as a major change from previous cycles.

Humanitarian actors see the shift as a reduction in the scope of interventions. National authorities are concerned that decisions are not grounded in nationally validated data or aligned with a broader development vision. Humanitarian actors spoke of a narrowing space for influence among clusters and local NGOs; national authorities called for a fundamental revaluation of the aid model, arguing that if humanitarian action now covers a smaller proportion of needs, partners must commit to a genuine transition towards resilience, public service investment and locally driven economic recovery. Both actors agreed that this year’s prioritisation process represented a pragmatic, but ultimately constrained response to a funding crisis.

KII with humanitarian actors/national authorities/local actors and FGDs with local communities

Anticipated structural shifts in the humanitarian landscape

The funding cuts are triggering structural shifts in the humanitarian landscape, but humanitarian actors and national authorities perceive different risks, responses and solutions. Both agree that strategic recalibration is needed.

Humanitarian actors described the response to the funding cuts as largely reactive and short-term in nature. Adjustments have been made, such as concentrating efforts on IPC 4 and 5 zones and narrowing the focus to life-saving needs. Despite growing rhetoric around localisation, national NGOs have not received adequate resources or strategic support to fill the gap left by the withdrawal of international actors. Local organisations, especially in the centre and south of the country, remain underfunded and they lack infrastructural investment.

Some humanitarian actors see this crisis as a potential turning point to rethink models of aid delivery, emphasising the importance of integrating national and community-based actors. Others remain sceptical. In the absence of meaningful state capacity or resources, they note that shifting responsibilities to national structures without support could worsen fragmentation and inequality in aid delivery. This shift is viewed as more than a temporary crisis; it is increasingly interpreted as a structural transformation.

Moreover, where previous discourse promoted transformation through the humanitarian–development–peace nexus, through resilience and through localisation, the current moment is marked by tactical retrenchment. Humanitarian actors reported that there is no collective mechanism to monitor the effects of these shifts. The lack of data on unmet needs, geographic disparities or mortality trends hinders informed decision-making and risks locking the system into a cycle of reactive, under-resourced responses.

National authorities echo many of these concerns. But they place particular emphasis on the potential social and political consequences of a fragmented humanitarian response. They warn that unequal aid delivery, where only some areas are targeted, could lead to social ruptures.

National authorities also highlight operational risks: a breakdown in coordination and data sharing would leave the state unable to resume or replicate critical programmes. Furthermore, stark disparities in compensation between humanitarian staff and national service providers feed community frustrations and resentment, which could destabilise already fragile environments.

Both actors agree that a fundamental and strategic recalibration is needed. For national authorities, this means shifting towards nationally driven priorities, flexible funding and reimagined partnerships. For humanitarian actors, it requires in-depth reflection on the limits of current strategies, more precise mechanisms for strategic adaptation and growing attention to structural gaps.

Community priorities and perspectives on the way forward

Local actors and communities agree that food assistance is the priority in the current humanitarian context. Yet their perspectives differ in emphasis, perceived responsibilities and how to improve aid management. Communities urgently need access to essential services and depend on aid as the local economy has collapsed. Local actors are calling for assistance to support sustainable livelihoods and self-sufficiency.

Community members highlighted the absence of ongoing assistance, emphasising their dependency on humanitarian aid due to a collapsed local economy. They urgently need food assistance, plus healthcare, education and livelihood support (including cash transfers and income-generating activities (mentioned as secondary but still necessary). Some forms of aid, like dignity kits or locally available non-food items, are seen as less valuable currently. Notably, several participants expressed the view that if funding decreases further, it would be more acceptable to suspend lower-priority assistance to maintain food aid and support for income generating activities (IGAs).

Local actors broadly confirmed this prioritisation of food, health and income support, noting that many families in one site eat only once daily. However, they went further by articulating long-term solutions. They emphasised the need for resilience-building through agricultural development, livestock recovery and improved market access. They argued that IGAs should not only be sustained but also carefully monitored to ensure the productive and responsible use of funds.

Local actors proposed that assistance should be refocused to support sustainable livelihoods and promote self-sufficiency, primarily through community-driven livelihood activities. Populations affected by crisis must choose their activities rather than being assigned predefined solutions by humanitarian actors. One informant suggested that aid organisations be required to work directly in areas of origin to support returnees and ease pressure on host communities.

Community members emphasised the need for more inclusive and transparent aid systems. They proposed stronger coordination between humanitarian actors and local leaders, plus increased involvement of displaced leaders in managing aid. They also highlighted gaps in coverage and advocated extending assistance to all IDPs and host populations.

Anticipated excess mortality risks and gaps in needs monitoring

The absence of humanitarian support could lead to widespread displacement and criminality as populations, stripped of basic support, turn to informal or illegal means to survive. IDPs already face heightened risks of disease, malnutrition and death, and this situation will likely deteriorate. Fraud and dysfunction in aid distribution systems may worsen without stronger oversight.

Across local actors, humanitarian responders and national authorities, there is widespread agreement that the reduction of humanitarian assistance will have negative consequences for communities, especially the most vulnerable. They are concerned about a potential rise in avoidable mortality, particularly among children and women, as life-saving services such as nutrition, health care and protection are scaled down or halted.

However, humanitarian actors emphasised a critical gap in the current system: no collective mechanism exists to monitor the impact of these budget cuts on core humanitarian indicators like nutrition levels, mortality rates or access to care. Many warned that, in some areas, the lack of assessment capacity has already made it impossible to produce reliable forecasts, compounding uncertainty. They described a growing divide between areas that still receive minimal levels of support and those that are now effectively invisible to the humanitarian system.

Local authorities argued that this is not simply a temporary funding gap, but rather a fundamental shift in the international humanitarian landscape. In their view, the disengagement of major donors and the reallocation of global attention to crises elsewhere, such as Ukraine or Gaza, mark the beginning of a long-term transformation. They stressed that countries like Mali can no longer rely on a volatile international aid system and must instead invest in building models of resilience anchored in local capacities and national priorities. Interviewees expressed a shared frustration that current international funding frameworks often reflect external political agendas rather than responding to locally defined needs.

All respondent groups agreed that the cumulative effect of these changes could profoundly destabilise the social fabric in Mali, particularly if the current two-speed system of humanitarian assistance continues. As only some areas will be targeted, interviewees expressed concern that perceptions of injustice and exclusion are likely to grow, with potential long-term consequences for trust, cohesion and national stability. Moreover, the loss of experienced personnel and the closure of humanitarian infrastructure are seen as critical setbacks; even if funding were to return in the future, it may not be possible to rapidly restart operations. In this context, respondents recognised that both the humanitarian system and national institutions need to adapt, not just to address current needs but also to navigate a changing global landscape with fewer resources and rising vulnerabilities.