In the first quarter of 2025, and as a result of the USAID funding freeze and executive orders from the new U.S. government administration, hundreds of cooperation and humanitarian aid projects came to a sudden end. This shock has brought into focus the vulnerability of people in need of humanitarian assistance for which there is no longer funding, but also the dependence of the humanitarian system on a few donors, and the damage - perhaps irreparable - done to the entire sector and its professionals.
At the same time, many voices have questioned how the closure of these projects was being done. What additional negative consequences can an unplanned closure, without an exit strategy prepared in advance, have? And in what way can ethics be ensured in the closure of a humanitarian project, even when it occurs unexpectedly?
Table of contents:
Exit strategies at the closure of a humanitarian action project
The closure of a humanitarian action project is, by definition, inevitable. After all, humanitarian action is also, by definition, temporary. Ideally, the main reason should always be the disappearance of the humanitarian needs that triggered the initiation of the response. If the emergency has been overcome, humanitarian assistance should no longer be necessary, or it should be transformed into other support for lasting recovery and sustainable development. However, an international cooperation project can be terminated for many other reasons, such as an acute deterioration of security, a significant contraction of the humanitarian space that allows intervention with neutrality or independence, or simply, the end of funding.
All these circumstances, also ideally, should be anticipated, so that there can be an exit strategy that contemplates different approaches. One may be a progressive reduction in the intensity of activities, which in some cases may even allow, at least for a time, the possibility of a later reactivation if it becomes relevant or viable again. Another may consist of a transfer to another actor, who can give continuity to the actions and services. A transformation in the modalities of intervention and the objectives of the action may also be considered, in order to adapt to the new situation. In other cases, however, the closure of the project and its activities occurs abruptly.
In all these cases, although with different dynamics, tensions and intense ethical dilemmas can arise, both of which are difficult to resolve. In addition, when the process is not properly planned or thought through, harm can occur to individuals, communities and organizations that were involved in or assisted by the project, including staff and local counterparts.
Is it possible to responsibly close a humanitarian intervention?
The ethics of the temporary
The temporality of humanitarian action should not lead to myopia. Indeed, in all humanitarian action, attention must be paid to past circumstances (usually fraught with social injustices) and how these circumstances have shaped the current crisis and the ongoing humanitarian response. An indispensable ethical element is also to try to understand the consequences that present actions may have, and to anticipate potential harms that may occur as a result of the intervention or its termination. For this reason, this look to the future must seek, from the beginning of the action, and as far as possible, to achieve a certain sustainability and advance in equity. Finally, none of this is possible if from the outset there is no deep respect for collaborative and inclusive approaches that value local knowledge and capacities.
It is a priority to think with the community, for the community
It is not enough to look at the problem from an external technical view. The first thing must always be to know what is important for a community in the closing of a project:
- The transparency of organizations regarding their intentions, timelines and processes. This may require meetings and consultations with the community, which may be impossible if the necessary communication channels had not been created beforehand.
- Collaboration between humanitarian organizations and local leaders When these people have been focal points of communication between the organization and the rest of the community, they need to be supported in this role.
- Community participation in the closure process. This may include closing ceremonies, participatory end-of-project evaluations, or community decision-making activities on the next steps in addressing lingering problems. Moreover, in many instances, circumstances also allow for the decision to close the project to be discussed and analyzed with the community, its representatives, and even local staff of collaborating organizations.
- The possibility of sustaining project activities after the end of the project. Some of the activities can be continued from the community, without further external support from the organization that developed the previous project, if an agreement is reached and they are assisted in the preparations.
- The continuity of the organization's communication and connection with the community. Communities value the efforts of organizations to monitor the long-term impact of completed projects, and to keep abreast of community needs, even when they have no clear possibility of helping to alleviate them.
- Community justice and relations in the closure process. Many intra-community dynamics and relations can deteriorate if, at project closure, some groups benefit more than others or if divisions have been created between them.
- Support for communities to be better prepared for future crises. Humanitarian organizations should seek to incorporate disaster risk reduction and management components into their responses that empower and enable local communities and organizations to prepare for future crises.
Closing a humanitarian project should start on day one
The implications of the ethical aspects of project closure should be considered from the very design and initiation of interventions. However, on many occasions, little attention is paid to the elements related to the termination of the action, or to contingency plans in case its continuity becomes unsustainable. All too often, these aspects are completed by copying and pasting poorly thought-out texts, at the stage of writing proposals for submission to donor calls for proposals. Moreover, this problem occurs even in contexts where the early termination of a project is a likely scenario. When these issues are not addressed in the design and planning phase, there is also a high likelihood that they will be put on the back burner during implementation, when the workload and rush are greatest.
Continuous evaluation of the progress of activities and their results during the implementation of a project also makes it possible to take measures that make closure more manageable and acceptable. This can avoid moving from an accelerated emergency implementation (because of a backlog in financial execution) to an abrupt halt in activities. A gradual reduction allows participating and assisted families and communities to anticipate how the change will affect them, and to prepare better and in a more progressive manner for the closure. It also helps to ensure respect for the dignity, welfare and labor rights of local staff who terminate their contracts. Other aspects such as the ethical and responsible management of data collected during the project cannot be improvised at the last minute either.
The lack of planning on how to do, in an ethical and responsible manner, the closure of humanitarian projects even for sudden causes, produces frustration and confusion. Depending on the circumstances, they can also damage the image, local reputation and trust generated by the humanitarian system and its organizations. In addition to this, in humanitarian contexts, a poorly planned closure increases the risk of violence and insecurity.
The way we close projects is a reflection of how much we care about people and their communities
For all of the above reasons, it is always key to address the ethical considerations of project closure even before it begins. Doing so not only helps to reduce the unintended harm of humanitarian actions, but also demonstrates that the humanitarian system and its actors really care about the people and communities they work with. This is, after all, what lies behind the humanitarian imperative of alleviating suffering, and what legitimizes us to continue to be where we need to be.
Blog
External links
- Bond, 2025. Closing programs while continuing to keep people safe: what to consider.
- The New Humanitarian, 2025. What's your humanitarian exit plan?
- Humanitarian Health Ethics, 2023. Ethics and the closure of humanitarian healthcare projects.
- Humanitarian Health Ethics, 2023. What do communities value in humanitarian project closure? A guidance note.
- Hunt, 2023. What Does 'Closing Well' Entail for Humanitarian Project Data? Seven Questions as Humanitarian Health Projects Are (Being) Closed or Handed Over.
- Eckenwiler, 2023. Viewing humanitarian project closure through the lens of an ethics of the temporary.
- Hunt, 2020. Closing well: national and international humanitarian workers' perspectives on the ethics of closing humanitarian health projects..
- Pal, 2019. Ethical considerations for closing humanitarian projects: a scoping review.
English 
Español