Humanitarian Training in 2025: Evolving to Match Reality
The humanitarian operating environment is changing faster than training models are adapting.
Across the Middle East and beyond, the intersection of prolonged conflict, constrained funding, and growing localisation demands has forced organisations to reconsider how and where they prepare their staff for deployment.
Funding Pressure and Measurable Outcomes
The Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2025 warns that international humanitarian funding is entering a period of sustained contraction, with donor contributions falling in real terms since 2022.
This financial pressure is driving a shift in how training is planned and justified. Donors and internal auditors now expect training programmes to demonstrate measurable operational impact, not just attendance figures or compliance with policy.
For many organisations, that means moving from short, policy-driven courses towards integrated readiness programmes that can be evidenced through improved safety outcomes, faster response, or reduced incident rates.
Unequal Access and Localisation Gaps
Research by the Global Interagency Security Forum (GISF) and Humanitarian Outcomes continues to show disparities between international and national NGO staff when it comes to access to accredited training.
Large international agencies usually have dedicated training budgets and logistical support to send staff abroad; national partners rarely do.
This uneven access persists despite years of localisation commitments and creates significant variation in preparedness between teams working on the same response.
In the Middle East, where many humanitarian operations rely heavily on national staff, this imbalance directly affects organisational resilience. The staff most likely to face immediate medical or security incidents are often those with the least access to structured, scenario-based instruction.
The Cost of Distance
For decades, accredited humanitarian safety and medical training has been concentrated in Europe and North America.
This model has served the sector well but carries substantial indirect costs: travel, accommodation, visa processing, and the opportunity cost of time away from mission duties.
Studies in humanitarian learning, including those published by the WHO and in Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness (2022), highlight these barriers as among the leading factors limiting participation in essential training.
When budgets are tight and operations continuous, these costs can outweigh the practical benefits of centralised overseas delivery.
The Emergence of In-Country and Regional Models
Protracted conflicts such as Ukraine and Sudan have demonstrated that in-country training is viable, and often essential, when movement restrictions or operational tempo make travel impossible.
However, these models have largely developed as short-term, reactive solutions rather than as part of a sustained regional training strategy.
Outside of these exceptions, most accredited training still takes place in Europe.
This reflects both the concentration of accredited providers and the absence of permanent, quality-assured regional facilities. Yet sector analyses by the WHO and ICRC increasingly point to the need for training infrastructures that are accessible, regionally grounded, and integrated with local emergency-care systems.
For the Middle East, where humanitarian, security, and media operations converge across borders, the logic of regional delivery is clear: proximity enhances participation, realism, and continuity.
Quality, Accreditation, and Clinical Governance
With the expansion of training delivery, maintaining standards has become a focal point.
The WHO Emergency Care Systems Framework (2024) and the Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care (FPHC) emphasise that medical and trauma training must be led by clinically current practitioners working under a recognised governance structure.
Accreditation remains essential not for prestige, but for assurance: it ensures that the skills being taught are aligned with current evidence, legally defensible, and transferable across organisations.
Courses that operate outside these frameworks risk producing uneven outcomes and eroding confidence among donors, insurers, and participants alike.
Integrating Training with Operational Reality
Reports from ALNAP, GISF, and the ICRC all converge on the same point, the effectiveness of training depends less on its duration than on its contextual relevance.
Scenario-based courses conducted in environments that mirror real field conditions have been shown to improve decision-making and knowledge retention far more than classroom-based or simulation-heavy formats.
Training that takes place within or near the environments where staff operate allows for contextual problem-solving: working in local climates, with comparable resources, and under similar constraints.
This approach not only reinforces realism but also reduces downtime and increases inclusivity — particularly for national staff who might otherwise be excluded by cost or visa requirements.
Regional Relevance in the Middle East
Jordan’s role as a logistical and political hub for operations in Syria, Gaza, Iraq, and Yemen positions it as a natural regional training location.
The country combines relative stability, accessible infrastructure, and international connectivity with proximity to high-risk operational theatres.
UN agencies and major NGOs already use Amman as a coordination base, making it a practical setting for training that connects international standards with regional context.
Regional facilities in such locations can provide continuity that ad-hoc training deployments cannot — enabling organisations to schedule, refresh, and adapt courses in line with operational cycles rather than funding cycles.
The Direction of Travel
Across the sector, humanitarian training is moving towards evidence, accessibility, and accountability.
The ALNAP Learning from Response 2024 report and ICRC Operational Readiness Reviews highlight the same conclusion: effective training must build deployable capability, not just deliver certificates.
Whether delivered by humanitarian agencies, commercial providers, or academic institutions, the expectation in 2025 is that training programmes are regionally relevant, accredited, and operationally integrated.
The direction of travel is clear — from compliance to capability, and from distance to proximity.
References (informal list for transparency)
-
- ALNAP / Development Initiatives – Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2025
-
- Global Interagency Security Forum (GISF) – State of Practice: The Evolution of Security Risk Management in the Humanitarian Space (2024)
-
- Humanitarian Outcomes – Aid Worker Security Report 2025
-
- WHO – Emergency Care Systems Framework (2024)
-
- Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care (FPHC) – PHEM Competency Framework (2024)
-
- ICRC – Operational Readiness Reviews (2024
