<\/p>\n
Abstract Introduction<\/b> Problem Statement<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n This study proceeds from a central problem: prevailing evaluations of humanitarian response plans in Yemen have largely been confined to two contradictory perspectives\u2014praising their ability to save lives and offering moral criticism for their failure to improve living conditions. However, both perspectives, in their common form, overlook the crucial question of <\/span>\u201chow and why.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n The research problem lies in the gap between the volume of humanitarian resources mobilized\u2014approximately <\/span>$20 billion over a decade<\/b>\u2014and the persistence of living indicators at catastrophic levels. This study argues that this gap cannot be explained solely by funding shortages or weak implementation. Rather, it requires an explanatory analysis that examines the <\/span>design of interventions, the mechanisms they activate, and the political and economic contexts within which they operate.<\/b><\/p>\n Accordingly, this paper seeks to answer the following questions:<\/span><\/p>\n Methodology:<\/b> Based on this analytical foundation, the study is framed within the methodology of Realist Evaluation developed by Ray Pawson and Nick Tilley<\/span>, described as an interpretive approach that goes beyond linear measurement of results to analyze the interactive relationship between context, mechanisms, and outcomes. This methodology starts from a central assumption that humanitarian interventions are not neutral technical tools, but rather socio-political programs whose effectiveness is shaped by the mechanisms they activate within specific contexts marked by conflict, institutional fragmentation, and uneven balances of power. Thus, the central analytical question becomes: what works? for whom? and under what structural and political conditions? This is a question more consistent with the nature of the Yemeni crisis as a protracted, multi-level crisis in which humanitarian considerations intersect with the determinants of the political economy of conflict. The combination of deep documentary analysis and field experience theoretically framed within realist evaluation gives the study an explanatory capacity that goes beyond description, enabling it to deconstruct the logic of the response plans themselves and reveal their structural limits and transformative potential.<\/span><\/p>\n Objectives of the Response Plans<\/b> Concept of Response Plans<\/b> Concept of Living Indicators<\/b> Evolution of Humanitarian Response Plans in Yemen (2015\u20132025)<\/b> Table (1): Planned and Reached Population, and Planned and Received Funding During the Humanitarian Response Plan Period<\/span><\/p>\n Source:<\/b> Prepared by the researcher based on the Humanitarian Response Plans issued by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n An extended analysis of humanitarian response plans in Yemen (2015\u20132025) reflects a mixture of tactical successes and strategic failures. While these plans succeeded at the level of \u201cvital maintenance\u201d by preventing the comprehensive collapse of food and health security and containing epidemics, they showed limited impact on long-term living indicators and on achieving sustainability, which entrenched a state of structural dependency. This disparity is attributed to the focus of programs on survival rather than development, political and security constraints, fragmented authorities, and the persistent gap between humanitarian and development agendas.<\/span><\/p>\n The statistical data in Table (1) confirms this structural imbalance, revealing a sharp gap between rising needs and available resources. Out of a total of <\/span>$33.98 billion<\/b> required over the decade, only <\/span>$20.09 billion<\/b> was received. The sharp decline in the funding curve\u2014from its peak in <\/span>2019 ($3.6 billion)<\/b> to its lowest level in <\/span>2025 ($0.7 billion)<\/b>\u2014despite needs remaining at critical levels exceeding <\/span>19 million people<\/b>, demonstrates the widening <\/span>\u201cresponse gap\u201d<\/b> and the inability of interventions to move beyond their immediate relief role. This has turned aid into merely a tool for postponing total collapse without addressing its structural roots.<\/span><\/p>\n Theoretical Frameworks Explaining the Impact of Humanitarian Interventions<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n The Politics of Humanitarian Planning<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n The study finds that humanitarian response plans are not merely purely technical documents, but rather the product of a complex political negotiation process among international donors, United Nations agencies (OCHA), major international organizations, the government, and the Houthis. This reality means that the declared objectives and requested budgets may result from political adjustments aimed at convincing donors and demonstrating the scale of the catastrophe, without necessarily reflecting the realistic implementation capacity on the ground. Consequently, the gap between objectives and results is not merely a failure of implementation, but also an inherent gap in the design of the plans themselves, which oscillate between humanitarian ambition and political reality.<\/span><\/p>\n Key Results of the Response Plans (2015\u20132025)<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n After analyzing the trajectory of the humanitarian response over more than a full decade, several core findings can be derived. Table (2) reveals a striking paradox: despite the enormous financial and human resources mobilized, the overall living indicators of the population either remained fixed at catastrophic levels or continued to deteriorate. This numerical reality represents the main starting point for understanding the limits of the effectiveness of the humanitarian response and forms the background against which the following qualitative results can be interpreted.<\/span><\/p>\n Table (2): Development of Some Key Living Indicators in Yemen (2015\u20132025)<\/span><\/p>\n Source:<\/b> Prepared by the researcher based on international reports.<\/span><\/p>\n Analysis of the Impact of Humanitarian Response Plans on Basic Living Indicators<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n The analysis measures the impact of humanitarian response plans in Yemen on a set of basic living indicators, as intermediate outcomes reflecting the ability of humanitarian interventions to move from the logic of immediate rescue to improving living conditions. The analysis is based on linking quantitative data issued by international organizations with an interpretive analysis of the mechanisms activated by interventions within different contexts. It assumes that the stability of indicators or their temporary improvement does not necessarily mean sustainable effectiveness unless it is accompanied by changes in the mechanisms of production, income, and adaptive capacity. To continue the analysis, the impact on the following sectors is examined:<\/span><\/p>\n The Impact of Humanitarian Response on Food Security<\/b> The Impact of Response on Income and Livelihoods<\/b> The Impact of Humanitarian Response on the Health Sector<\/b> The Impact of Response on Education and Social Protection<\/b> As for protection, programs<\/b> focused on responding to gender-based violence and child protection, without addressing the economic and social roots of protection risks.<\/span><\/p>\n After reviewing the analysis of the impact of interventions, which paints a bleak picture of the overall living situation, we can now derive the analytical conclusions that explain the reasons for this gap between effort and impact:<\/span><\/p>\n 1- Success in preventing total collapse (preventing famine and epidemics):<\/b> 2- Chronic funding gap:<\/b> 3- Entrenching dependency on aid:<\/b> 4- Erosion of human and institutional capital:<\/b> Discussion of Results<\/b><\/p>\n The results show that the humanitarian response in Yemen functioned as a <\/span>life-support system<\/b> for the state and society, preventing the complete collapse of basic living indicators but failing to address the root causes of the crisis. This complex dynamic can be understood through an integrated analysis combining several key theories in humanitarian work.<\/span><\/p>\n 1- From the perspective of <\/span>Protracted Crisis Management Theory<\/b>, organizations succeeded in institutionalizing relief work and transforming it from an emergency response into a sustainable system for managing a chronic crisis. However, this administrative success placed them in the trap of a <\/span>\u201ccircular response,\u201d<\/b> where assistance is provided to the same population groups for years without enabling them to exit the cycle of need. This shift reflects the deliberate adoption of a strategy of <\/span>scarcity management<\/b> in the absence of a political solution, where the objective becomes preventing collapse rather than achieving recovery.<\/span><\/p>\n 2- This orientation becomes even clearer when applying <\/span>Minimum Living Standards Theory<\/b>. Humanitarian response plans in Yemen were clearly designed to keep the population above the biological <\/span>\u201csurvival threshold,\u201d<\/b> by focusing on critical indicators such as acute malnutrition and access to water and health services. This design, aimed at preventing total humanitarian collapse, explains why broader living indicators such as poverty and unemployment remained stable or deteriorated; they were never the primary target of the interventions.<\/span><\/p>\n 3- Furthermore, <\/span>Humanitarian Gap Theory<\/b> highlights the main reason behind the limited impact. The gap was not only financial but also an <\/span>\u201caccess gap\u201d<\/b>
\n<\/b>
\n<\/b><\/span>This study examines the impact and effectiveness of humanitarian response plans in Yemen during the period 2015\u20132025 in mitigating the deterioration of living indicators. The analysis draws on data from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and other international sources. The findings indicate that humanitarian response functioned as a life-support system, preventing total collapse but reinforcing chronic dependency due to the focus on the survival threshold, persistent political constraints, and the limited effectiveness of resilience strategies in the absence of political will. The study argues that humanitarian strategies should be reoriented toward reducing long-term dependency by linking aid to structural reforms that stabilize the economy and restore basic services. It also highlights the need to measure the \u201ccost of constraints\u201d on humanitarian access to strengthen international advocacy and shift the response from temporary relief toward addressing the root causes of Yemen\u2019s protracted crisis.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/span> Since the coup of 21 September 2014, Yemen has been witnessing a complex and worsening humanitarian crisis resulting from the overlap of armed conflict with economic collapse and the deterioration of basic services. These conditions have led to worsening food insecurity, deterioration of livelihoods, and increased protection risks, especially among vulnerable groups<\/span>. In this context, the international community, represented by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and its partners, prepared a series of Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs) to guide interventions. The response plans (2015\u20132016) focused on emergency response to life-saving needs<\/span>. With the continuation of the crisis, these plans gradually evolved (2017\u20132020) to adopt more comprehensive approaches in the context of a protracted crisis, with increasing focus on prioritization based on severity of need, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic<\/span>, and declining funding. The response plans affirm that humanitarian action, despite its importance, cannot be a permanent solution to the crisis, stressing the need for progress toward peace and economic recovery to build community resilience. These plans represent a critical analytical framework for understanding the evolution of humanitarian approaches and evaluating their impact and limits in Yemen.<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n<\/b><\/span> This paper adopts a descriptive analytical approach of an integrative nature, based on combining critical documentary analysis of the Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs) issued by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs during the period (2015\u20132025), with the researcher\u2019s perspective as a field-based analytical tool in itself, grounded in cumulative experience extending over eighteen years in the Yemeni humanitarian context. This use is not limited to narrative or experiential recall, but is embodied in the method of participant observation, through direct engagement in sector cluster meetings, contribution to needs analysis sessions and priority-setting, and regular professional interaction with experts from UN agencies and international organizations. This approach provides a structural understanding of the dynamics of humanitarian planning, mechanisms of decision-making, patterns of resource distribution, and the power relations embedded within the response system.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/span> Humanitarian response plans focused on several main objectives, the most important of which were<\/span>:<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n<\/b><\/span> Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs) are defined as comprehensive strategic documents aimed at providing a unified framework for identifying the most urgent humanitarian needs and coordinating responses to them. HRPs are also defined within the framework of the Humanitarian Programme Cycle (HPC) as the operational tool that translates humanitarian needs analysis into strategic objectives and coordinated sectoral plans.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/span> In the context of this study, living indicators are defined as dynamic measures that reflect individuals\u2019 quality of life and their ability to meet basic needs in a context of conflict. They represent the areas most affected by humanitarian interventions. These indicators are reflected in five main dimensions:<\/span> food security, represented by levels of availability and access; income, expressed through purchasing power and poverty rates;<\/span> health, which reflects the efficiency of services and mortality rates; education, in terms of access opportunities and reducing dropout; and livelihoods, linked to income-generating activities and productive resources.<\/span> Together, these dimensions constitute the primary benchmark for evaluating the effectiveness of humanitarian response plans in achieving a transition from emergency relief to livelihood stability. Access to basic services is used as a measure for assessing living standards and quality of life.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/span> Humanitarian response plans in Yemen witnessed a gradual shift from life-saving emergency response in the early years of the conflict to a model for managing a chronic humanitarian crisis. This shift was characterized by narrowing the scope of interventions, setting strict priorities, and focusing on the minimum life-saving activities, while revealing a growing gap between escalating needs and available resources. The following table illustrates the key features of these plans:<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n
\n Year<\/b><\/td>\n People in Need (million)<\/b><\/td>\n People Targeted (million)<\/b><\/td>\n People Reached (million)<\/b><\/td>\n Required Response Funding (billion USD)<\/b><\/td>\n Received Response Funding (billion USD)<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2015<\/span><\/td>\n 21.1<\/span><\/td>\n 11.7<\/span><\/td>\n 8.8<\/span><\/td>\n 1.60<\/span><\/td>\n 0.89<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2016<\/span><\/td>\n 21.2<\/span><\/td>\n 13.6<\/span><\/td>\n 10.6<\/span><\/td>\n 1.63<\/span><\/td>\n 1.03<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2017<\/span><\/td>\n 18.8<\/span><\/td>\n 12.0<\/span><\/td>\n 10.2<\/span><\/td>\n 2.34<\/span><\/td>\n 1.76<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2018<\/span><\/td>\n 22.2<\/span><\/td>\n 13.1<\/span><\/td>\n 13.5<\/span><\/td>\n 3.11<\/span><\/td>\n 2.51<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2019<\/span><\/td>\n 24.1<\/span><\/td>\n 21.4<\/span><\/td>\n 13.7<\/span><\/td>\n 4.2<\/span><\/td>\n 3.6<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2020<\/span><\/td>\n 24.1<\/span><\/td>\n 21.4<\/span><\/td>\n 10.0<\/span><\/td>\n 3.4<\/span><\/td>\n 2.0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2021<\/span><\/td>\n 20.7<\/span><\/td>\n 16.0<\/span><\/td>\n 11.6<\/span><\/td>\n 3.9<\/span><\/td>\n 2.4<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2022<\/span><\/td>\n 23.4<\/span><\/td>\n 17.9<\/span><\/td>\n 10.7<\/span><\/td>\n 4.3<\/span><\/td>\n 2.2<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2023<\/span><\/td>\n 21.6<\/span><\/td>\n 17.3<\/span><\/td>\n 8.7<\/span><\/td>\n 4.3<\/span><\/td>\n 1.6<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2024<\/span><\/td>\n 18.2<\/span><\/td>\n 11.2<\/span><\/td>\n 8.0<\/span><\/td>\n 2.7<\/span><\/td>\n 1.4<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2025<\/span><\/td>\n 19.5<\/span><\/td>\n 10.5<\/span><\/td>\n 5.0<\/span><\/td>\n 2.5<\/span><\/td>\n 0.7<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Total<\/b><\/td>\n \u2013<\/span><\/td>\n \u2013<\/span><\/td>\n \u2013<\/span><\/td>\n 33.98<\/b><\/td>\n 20.09<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n
\n<\/b> This theory focuses on understanding how humanitarian actors deal with crises that evolve into chronic situations, where the primary objective becomes managing the crisis and limiting its deterioration rather than resolving it. In the Yemeni context, this theory explains the gradual shift in the objectives of response plans from improving living conditions to preventing the complete collapse of basic life indicators and ensuring that the population remains at the minimum subsistence level. It also explains that reducing the number of beneficiaries and tightening targeting criteria represents an application of a scarcity management strategy in the absence of a political solution, which reinforces dependence on aid and turns the response into part of managing the status quo rather than changing it.<\/span><\/li>\n
\n<\/b> This theory suggests that humanitarian response in high-risk environments should ensure that individuals remain above the biological and social survival threshold without aiming for a comprehensive improvement in welfare levels. In Yemen, this theory explains the design of response plans that focused almost exclusively on acute and immediate crisis indicators such as malnutrition and mortality rates, with the aim of preventing mass deaths. This design explains why the stability or deterioration of general living indicators was not considered a failure of the response, but rather a logical outcome of a design that did not aim to address the root causes of livelihood deterioration, instead functioning as a \u201clast safety net.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
\n<\/b> This theory assumes a permanent structural imbalance between the growing scale of humanitarian needs and the financial and political resources available for response. In Yemen, this theory represents a central framework for understanding the direct reasons behind the limited impact of response plans. It explains that recurring funding gaps\u2014sometimes reaching 40\u201350% of needs\u2014force a reduction in the scope of interventions and a reprioritization in favor of life-saving sectors at the expense of long-term stability. It also highlights that the problem lies not in diagnosing the crisis but in treating it, as ambitious plans often remain unimplemented due to lack of resources, thereby contributing to the perpetuation of the crisis.<\/span><\/li>\n
\n<\/b> This theory is based on integrating emergency humanitarian action with sustainable development and peacebuilding in order to ensure a lasting impact in complex crises. In Yemen, the application of this theory, particularly since 2022, represents a conscious attempt to move beyond the logic of \u201csurvival management\u201d toward \u201cresilience building.\u201d However, its implementation has faced major challenges due to the absence of peace and the lack of flexible multi-year funding, which has made its impact partial and unable to produce structural transformation. The theory calls for a fundamental change in how actors operate, linking interventions and expanding partnerships in order to reduce dependence on aid.<\/span><\/li>\n
\n<\/b> This theory focuses on the ability of individuals and communities to absorb shocks, adapt to them, and maintain basic livelihood functions in unstable environments. In Yemen, the theory explains the inclusion of empowerment programs such as livelihood support and cash-for-work within response plans, with the aim of strengthening households\u2019 ability to absorb shocks. However, the study shows that resilience-building programs remained a complementary objective with limited impact and did not become a substitute for emergency humanitarian response, due to the continued severe political and economic shocks that exceed communities\u2019 capacity to absorb and adapt.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n
\n Indicator<\/b><\/td>\n Proposed Data Source<\/b><\/td>\n General Trend Observation<\/b><\/td>\n Approximate Value 2015<\/b><\/td>\n Approximate Value 2025<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Percentage of population below the poverty line<\/span><\/td>\n World Bank, UNDP<\/span><\/td>\n Severe and continuous deterioration in living standards<\/span><\/td>\n 49%<\/span><\/td>\n 80%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Number of people in need of humanitarian assistance<\/span><\/td>\n OCHA Humanitarian Response Plans<\/span><\/td>\n Stability at catastrophic levels despite funding changes<\/span><\/td>\n 21.1 million<\/span><\/td>\n 19.5 million<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Rate of acute malnutrition among children<\/span><\/td>\n UNICEF, WFP<\/span><\/td>\n Slight increase and stability at critical levels<\/span><\/td>\n 16%<\/span><\/td>\n 17.5%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Unemployment rate (especially among youth)<\/span><\/td>\n UNDP<\/span><\/td>\n Sharp increase due to the collapse of the economy and labor market<\/span><\/td>\n 15%<\/span><\/td>\n 35%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Yemen\u2019s ranking in the Human Development Index<\/span><\/td>\n UNDP Human Development Reports<\/span><\/td>\n Continuous decline reflecting overall developmental collapse<\/span><\/td>\n 168<\/span><\/td>\n 183<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\n<\/b> Food security is the most widely used indicator for evaluating the effectiveness of humanitarian response in Yemen. Data from the Integrated Food Security<\/span> Phase Classification (IPC) show that Yemen remained throughout the period of implementation of the eleven response plans within critical levels of food insecurity, despite the major expansion in food assistance programs. However, realist analysis reveals that these interventions activated mechanisms to prevent food collapse, but did not activate mechanisms for long-term food stability. Repeated food distribution led to temporary improvement in caloric intake, without addressing the causes of food insecurity related to income, production, and supply chains.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b> Cash-for-work programs and cash transfers showed relative capacity to improve short-term income for beneficiary households. However, limited coverage, their temporary nature, and their dependence on external funding prevented them from becoming tools for strengthening economic independence. Most interventions in this sector lacked integration with local markets, which limited their ability to create a multiplier effect within the local economy.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b> Humanitarian response contributed to maintaining the minimum level of health services, particularly in the areas of immunization, epidemic control, and primary healthcare. However, this role was compensatory in nature, as humanitarian organizations substituted for the state without building sustainable institutional capacities. This pattern, despite its necessity in the short term, contributed to entrenching the fragility of the health system in the long term.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b> In the education sector, humanitarian interventions focused on education in emergencies and on supporting incentive payments for teachers, which helped sustain the educational process partially. However, school dropout rates remained high, especially among the poorest groups.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b> The plans achieved notable success in preventing acute food insecurity from turning into widespread famine during critical moments (such as in 2018 and 2021). Health interventions also contributed to containing the largest cholera outbreak in modern history, saving millions of lives<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b> The analysis showed that actual funding did not exceed, on average, 55% of the required needs annually. This gap led to reductions in food rations, the closure of health facilities, and the suspension of protection programs, which kept the response constantly in a state of \u201cdefense\u201d rather than \u201coffense\u201d to improve indicators.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b> Despite the efforts made, the response based on emergency relief over many years weakened local resilience mechanisms and entrenched households\u2019 dependence on food assistance. Estimates indicate that more than 65% of households rely wholly or partially on aid to meet their basic needs.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b> The plans failed to halt the long-term deterioration in the education and health sectors. Despite the provision of incentives, the education system continued to suffer from the dropout of millions of children, and the health system continued to operate at half capacity, meaning that the humanitarian impact functioned as a \u201cpain reliever\u201d rather than a \u201ctreatment\u201d for infrastructure<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n