The Pulse of Humanitarian Coordination 2024: Overview of IASC Structures at the Country Level (December 2025)

In 2024, humanitarian coordination structures under the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) were active in 30 operations across 29 locations. These included responses to both protracted crises and sudden-onset emergencies, with two System-Wide Scale-Ups in Sudan (August 2023-December 2025), Lebanon (October 2024–April 2025) and Syria (December 2024–June 2025).However, severe funding cuts since early 2025 have significantly reduced humanitarian operation and coordination capacities.

This report analyses how IASC’s coordination mechanisms have been implemented across humanitarian operations in 2024 and provides cluster projections on coordination capacities beyond July 2025. Key trends include:

• Clusters coordinated over 19,000 humanitarian partner organizations globally. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) continued to represent the largest group of humanitarian partners participating in cluster coordination (77%), with local/national NGOs (L/NNGOs) representing the largest share (47%) and international NGOs (INGOs) holding 30 per cent. Other stakeholders—United Nations agencies (7%), local or national authorities (5%), Red Cross/Red Crescent (3%), donors (5%), and others (5%)—maintained consistent representation, mirroring 2023 trends.
• After several consecutive years of growth, HCT averaged 32 members in 2024 (the lowest since 2021), suggesting greater simplification and efficacy. In contrast, Inter-Cluster Coordination Groups (ICCGs) have continued to grow, averaging 37 members (up from 34 in 2023), with Myanmar (69), Afghanistan (64), and Chad (62) hosting the largest ICCGs.
• Donor participation in HCTs dropped to its lowest since 2019, aligning with the IASC-endorsed HCT Terms of Reference which recommends representatives of Member States and regional bodies, including donors, are not members of HCTs. Donors were recorded in 79 per cent of HCTs (23 HCTs) in 2024, compared to 86 per cent in 2023.
• Local and national actors have gained greater representation and leadership in coordination. In HCTs, local/national NGOs’ representation reached parity with donors, each holding 12 per cent of seats. ICCGs are also increasingly inclusive, with national NGO participation rising to 56 per cent, and overall local/national actor (L/NA) involvement reaching 85 per cent of ICCGs (up from 75% in 2023). The number of LNAs in ICCGs also increased from 32 to 40, although below the 2022 peak of 58. Additionally, L/NNGOs held cluster leadership positions (co-coordinator, co-facilitator, co-chair) in 15 operations, reflecting continued efforts to strengthen local leadership in coordination mechanisms.
• Prior to the significant funding cuts announced in early 2025 dedicated cluster coordination capacity stood at only 64 per cent, with no operation reporting full coverage by the end of 2024. Myanmar and Ukraine, previously at 100 per cent, dropped to 90 per cent and 75 per cent, respectively. Madagascar (13%) and Niger (10%) reported the lowest capacities.
• Information Management (IM)capacity for clusters declined slightly to 50 per cent in 2024 (from 52% in 2023), with 9 per cent of clusters reporting no dedicated IM support. Madagascar and Cameroon, for example, had no dedicated IM capacity.
• Dedicated cluster capacity saw improvements across the three IASC System-Wide Scale-Up operations (Sudan, Lebanon, and Syria). In Syria-Damascus, dedicated cluster capacity increased by 15 per cent to 69 per cent. In Sudan, capacity rose from 77 per cent to 92 per cent. In Lebanon, two clusters were activated during the scale-up, with one cluster participating in the survey and reporting fully dedicated capacity.
• Subnational coordination mechanisms remained a key feature of localized humanitarian response, though trends varied across different models. The number of subnational HCT locations decreased from 52 to 47, primarily due to Syria discontinuing its six locations. In contrast, subnational ICCGs saw a notable increase: 117 active groups were reported across 21 operations, with the highest reported in Colombia (38) and Sudan (8). On the other hand, area-based coordination models were reported in 52 per cent of operations, down from 71 per cent in 2023, with several (such as Burkina Faso, Chad, Niger and others) no longer reporting area-based coordination. While the overall number of operations reporting area-based coordination mechanisms fell, the number of locations covered by active area-based coordination increased from 175 locations to 216 locations.
• Dedicated cluster coordinator capacity at subnational levels, however, remained extremely low, falling from 31 per cent to 25 per cent, and with the vast majority (61 per cent) of cluster coordinators at subnational level double hatting.

The number of thematic subgroups and technical working groups (TWGs) declined to 452, continuing a downward trend since 2020. Health, Nutrition, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), and Food Security clusters had the most groups. Thematic subgroups under HCTs and ICCGs fell to 169. Community Engagement and Accountability to Affected People, Cash and Voucher Assistance, Access, and Information Management were the most frequently established themes, with Gender being the only subgroup to increase.

Cluster coordination capacity projections beyond 2025

Given the drastic funding cuts that started occurring in early 2025, this year exceptionally, the mapping aimed to capture projections of cluster coordination capacity. Global Cluster Coordinators were requested in June and August 2025 to provide data on projected cluster capacity by January 2026, based on what was known to them at the time.

Responses indicate that the projected global average of “fully dedicated capacity” for both coordinators and IMOs is expected to drastically reduce in 2025 and 2026. By the second half of 2025 coordinator capacity is expected to have dropped to 55 per cent, while IMO capacity falls to 41 per cent, both significantly below 2024 levels. The situation is expected to deteriorate further by January 2026, with projections indicating a decline to just 32 per cent for coordinators and 20 per cent for IMOs, globally. At least four operations are forecasted operate with 10 per cent or less dedicated coordinator capacity, and at least four operations are projected to have no dedicated IM Officer capacity.

Cameroon, Colombia, and Nigeria –key transitioning operations –are projected to face sharp declines in cluster staffing post-July 2025. Cameroon will have no fully dedicated national coordinator and IM positions by January 2026; Colombia is expected to have no dedicated IM capacity and just 10 per cent dedicated cluster coordinator capacity; and Nigeria may retain 31 per cent and 15 per cent dedicated coordinator and IM roles, respectively. These reductions coupled with an increasing reliance on double-hatting, short-term surge deployments, and the downgrading of coordinator roles, pose serious risks to coordination quality, institutional memory, and local partner inclusion during transition periods.

Global cluster leads caution that the actual outlook may be even more severe than these figures suggest. Even prior to 2025, cluster capacities were suboptimal, and while the entire humanitarian system is under strain, the scale of reductions in cluster and IM capacities appears to be particularly steep. This downward trend poses a serious risk to the ability of clusters to deliver timely, coordinated, and effective humanitarian responses worldwide.

1. This figure may include double counting as some partners are members of several clusters.
2. L/NA’s include local and national nongovernmental humanitarian actors including local CSOs, such as: NNGOs, Red Cross/Red Crescent National Societies; human rights groups; women rights organizations (WROs); women-led organizations (WLOs) and girl-led initiatives; youth-led organizations; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTQI+) groups; faith-based organizations; organizations of persons with disabilities (OPD) as well as older persons’ organizations. The term L/NAs may also pertain to other L/NAs according to context: such as national and local authorities (IASC Guidance)