Inclusive humanitarian assistance and safeguards for the rights of persons with disabilities in the context of current humanitarian reform processes

Ensuring that humanitarian assistance is inclusive of and accessible to persons with disabilities is a legal and operational imperative. Article 11 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities requires States Parties to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies and natural disasters. While significant progress has been made in the development of normative frameworks, policies and standards on disability-inclusive humanitarian action, persistent gaps remain in their implementation. Strengthening the inclusion and meaningful participation of persons with disabilities throughout the humanitarian cycle is essential to advancing equitable, effective and rights-based humanitarian responses.

In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, Heba Hagrass, examines the implementation of inclusive humanitarian assistance and the measures required to safeguard the rights of persons with disabilities in the context of ongoing humanitarian reform processes, including the humanitarian reset. The report focuses on practical challenges, existing gaps and promising practices related to accessibility, participation, protection, data collection, funding and accountability, as well as the implications of humanitarian reforms for the inclusion of persons with disabilities.

While humanitarian reform efforts seek to improve efficiency, effectiveness and localization, concerns have been raised that, in the absence of explicit safeguards, existing commitments to disability inclusion may be weakened or reversed. Such developments risk further entrenching exclusion and inequality and undermining the realization of the rights of persons with disabilities in humanitarian settings. The Special Rapporteur therefore considers measures, safeguards and good practices that can ensure that humanitarian reform processes strengthen, rather than diminish, disability-inclusive humanitarian action.

To inform the report, the Special Rapporteur issued a call for inputs to States, United Nations entities, humanitarian actors, organizations of persons with disabilities, civil society and other stakeholders on the implementation of article 11 of the Convention, challenges and good practices in disability-inclusive humanitarian action, and the impact of ongoing humanitarian reforms. The report draws on 61 submissions, six online expert consultations and extensive desk research and review of relevant legal, policy and operational frameworks.

Persons with disabilities are disproportionally affected by situations of risk, with research showing that they are four times more likely to die during a disaster and experience higher rates of abuse, neglect and abandonment during armed conflicts and humanitarian emergencies. This higher risk is often caused by the inaccessibility of basic and life-saving services and emergency information, coupled with a lack of consideration for and data on persons with disabilities and their specific needs in humanitarian responses. This stands in contrast to the legal obligation of both States and humanitarian actors to ensure that the provision or funding of direct humanitarian assistance is inclusive of and accessible to persons with disabilities.

The primary legal obligation to provide disability-inclusive humanitarian action is established in article 11 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It requires that during all situations of risk (e.g. humanitarian emergencies, situations of armed conflict, foreign occupation and disasters),¹ States must take all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities. Additionally, States are required to apply the Convention’s human rights-based model of disability when interpreting and implementing all other applicable international legal obligations during situations of risk.²

1. A/HRC/31/30, para. 4. ↩
2. Ibid. ↩

The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities states that the primary action required to comply with the obligation of article 11 is the adoption or reform of national emergency response plans and protocols, ensuring that they are inclusive of and accessible to persons with disabilities in their design and implementation.³ Such plans and protocols should systematically incorporate disability inclusion by ensuring that persons with disabilities are included in evacuation planning, that adequate resources are allocated for disability-inclusive evacuation procedures and that disability is mainstreamed across humanitarian, migration and refugee policies. The meaningful participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations should be ensured throughout the design and implementation of such plans and protocols, with due consideration given to their perspectives and recommendations, including operational priorities and the distribution of assistance.

3. Ibid., para. 5. ↩

As noted by the Committee, the Convention provides a framework to guide how preparedness, response and recovery efforts can protect the rights of persons with disabilities during situations of risk.⁴ In addition to article 11, several provisions of the Convention are directly relevant to the implementation of States’ obligations to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk. These include article 4 (3) on consultation and participation; article 8 on awareness-raising; article 13 on access to justice; article 16 on protection from exploitation, violence and abuse; article 19 on independent living and inclusion in the community; article 21 on access to information; article 26 on habilitation and rehabilitation; article 28 on an adequate standard of living; article 31 on data collection; and article 33 on national implementation and monitoring mechanisms. Together, these provisions establish a comprehensive framework for inclusive preparedness, response, recovery and reconstruction measures.

4. CRPD/CSP/2022/4, para. 3. ↩

Article 32 (1) (a) is also highly relevant as it builds on the obligation of article 11 by requiring that international cooperation, including funding or taking direct humanitarian action, must be “inclusive of and accessible to persons with disabilities”. It should also “be, in all cases, respectful of the standards set out in the Convention”.⁵ Similarly, article 32 (1) (a) obligates humanitarian actors using international cooperation funds to comply with the rights, standards and principles of the Convention in providing humanitarian assistance.⁶ Consequently, States and humanitarian actors are required to ensure that all measures taken in situations of risk comply with the Convention, integrating the rights of persons with disabilities across all phases of preparedness, response, recovery and reconstruction.

5. A/HRC/31/30, para. 13. ↩
6. Ibid. ↩

In its resolution 2475 (2019), the Security Council explicitly recognized and reaffirmed the obligations of States and non-State actors towards persons with disabilities during situations of risk and the importance of article 11 of the Convention. The Council reaffirmed States’ obligations to ensure equal access to basic services and the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities in humanitarian action, including through consultation on inclusive assistance. It also called for strengthening the capacity of United Nations peacekeeping and peacebuilding actors to address disability rights and requested the Secretary-General to collect and report disability-disaggregated data, where relevant, in reports to the Security Council. The resolution provides an important framework for advancing dialogue and accountability on the rights and inclusion of persons with disabilities in humanitarian settings. It has created opportunities for persons with disabilities, their representative organizations and disability-focused stakeholders to advocate for more inclusive humanitarian action at the national and international levels. Nevertheless, the resolution has yet to realize its full potential, as limited efforts have been made to translate its commitments into concrete operational measures and sustained practice. As a result, its contribution to promoting disability-inclusive humanitarian assistance has thus far been constrained.

At the regional level, the European Union represents the only regional integration body to have ratified the Convention and recognize its legal obligations under articles 11 and 32 of the Convention.⁷ With the goal of ensuring that the needs of persons with disabilities are adequately addressed in European Union-funded humanitarian action, guidance notes have been developed to operationalize these obligations, as well as a European Union-wide Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.⁸ Notable is the creation of a “disability marker” to track projects specifically targeting the needs of persons with disabilities or mainstreaming disability throughout the humanitarian response.

7. Both the African Union and the Organization of American States have regional legal frameworks that reflect the obligations under article 11 of the Convention by calling for specialized measures to be taken to protect the safety and rights of persons with disabilities during emergencies. However, they have not sought to operationalize the article 11 obligations. ↩
8. European Commission, Guidance Note: Leaving No One behind – Disability Inclusion in EU External Action (2023), p. 11; European Commission, Union of Equality: Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021–2030 (2021), p. 24; and European Commission, “DG ECHO operational guidance: the inclusion of persons with disabilities in EU-funded humanitarian aid operations”, January 2019, pp. 2 and 3. ↩

The disability marker, although a voluntary policy tool, has been described as a powerful instrument for advocacy and accountability as it enables the tracking, and ultimately the visibility, of international cooperation and humanitarian action initiatives that target or benefit persons with disabilities. Yet, a recent study assessing the effectiveness of the marker notes with concern that disability inclusion is still not being systematically considered in the design, implementation and monitoring of the majority of European Union-funded development activities.⁹

9. European Disability Forum, “No time to lose: assessing EU ODA for disability inclusion from 2018–2023”, December 2025. ↩

At the national level, efforts to operationalize the Convention’s requirements have included the development of disability-inclusive humanitarian guidance, the mainstreaming of disability across humanitarian policies and action plans, the introduction of disability-specific monitoring and reporting requirements, and the earmarking of financial resources to promote the inclusion of persons with disabilities in humanitarian action.¹⁰ For example, the Guidelines for Mainstreaming Disability and Social Inclusion in Aid Projects seek to integrate the human rights-based approach to disability and embed the principle of “leave no one behind” across the humanitarian and development interventions of the Italian Agency for Development Cooperation. Notably, there are direct references to articles 2, 11, 32 and 35 of the Convention and the need for specific funding for accommodations and disability indicators within reporting by the Agency.¹¹ Similarly, Australia’s International Disability Equity and Rights Strategy seeks to integrate the principle of equality found in article 3 of the Convention across the country’s international engagements, a commitment that can be seen in the mainstreaming of disability inclusion throughout Australia’s Humanitarian Policy.¹² Also noteworthy is that, while Finland does not have a disability strategy for humanitarian assistance, it demonstrates international leadership and commitment to the legal obligations of the Convention by having disability inclusion be a cross-cutting objective of its development policy and ensuring that persons with disabilities are considered across sectors and funding instruments.¹³

10. Carolin Funke and Dennis Dijkzeul, Disability Inclusion in Humanitarian Crises: Robust Human Rights Norms? (Palgrave Macmillan, 2025). ↩
11. Italian Agency for Development Cooperation, Guidelines for Mainstreaming Disability and Social Inclusion in Aid Projects (2018). ↩
12. Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia’s International Disability Equity and Rights Strategy: Advancing Equity to Transform Lives (2024); and Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia’s Humanitarian Policy: Making a Difference for People in Crisis (2024). ↩
13. Mina C. Mojtjahedi, Rikka Mikkola and Niklas Saxén, “Advancing rights and inclusion of persons with disabilities in humanitarian action: a donor perspective”, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 105, No. 922 (2023), pp. 419–433. ↩

During armed conflict, one of the situations of risk covered by article 11 and a circumstance that frequently gives rise to humanitarian crises, both international humanitarian law and international human rights law apply. International humanitarian law serves as the lex specialis governing the conduct of hostilities and the protection of persons affected by armed conflict, while international human rights law continues to apply and complements international humanitarian law by informing the interpretation and implementation of States’ obligations and reinforcing the rights and protections afforded to individuals. Foundational to international humanitarian law is the prohibition against adverse distinction, which guarantees that rights, privileges and protections be applied equally and without discrimination, in particular on the basis of disability.¹⁴ Although disability is not specifically identified as a prohibited ground of discrimination, it is captured by the residual category “any other similar criteria”. The prohibition of discrimination therefore extends to discrimination on the basis of disability, consistent with the object and purpose of ensuring equal enjoyment of rights by all persons.¹⁵

14. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), “How law protects persons with disabilities in armed conflict”, 2017, pp. 2 and 3. ↩
15. Common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), art. 75 (1); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), art. 4 (1); ICRC, customary international humanitarian law, rule 88. ↩

International humanitarian law requires that special respect and protection be given to persons with disabilities, particularly in relation to their evacuation and treatment while detained,¹⁶ in the allowance and facilitation of unimpeded delivery of humanitarian assistance essential to the survival of a civilian population, without discrimination, including on the basis of disability,¹⁷ and that humanitarian services and assistance be tailored to the needs of persons with disabilities and/or priority be given to persons with disabilities in the delivery and implementation of humanitarian relief operations.¹⁸

16. Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, arts. 16, 30, 44, 45, 49 and 110; and Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, arts. 6–17, 21, 22, 27, 85, 119 and 127. ↩
17. Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, art. 23; and Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, art. 70. ↩
18. Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, art. 70 and related commentary, paras. 2816 and 2817. ↩

These requirements under international humanitarian law have a direct connection to the obligations under articles 11 and 32 of the Convention and highlight the complementary relationship between international humanitarian law and the Convention in ensuring the protection and safety of persons with disabilities during situations of armed conflict. This complementarity has been reflected in pledges made during the International Conferences of the Red Cross and Red Crescent relating to the provision of disability-inclusive humanitarian action and assistance, as well as to the development of persons with disabilities during situations of risk, representing a recognition by States and humanitarian organizations of the obligations under international humanitarian law and the Convention to provide humanitarian assistance that is disability-inclusive.¹⁹

19. Pledge by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy and the Italian Red Cross, “Enhance the protection and inclusion of persons with disabilities during situations of risks, including situations of armed conflicts and disasters”, during the thirty-fourth International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, available at https://rcrcconference.org/pledge/enhance-the-protection-and-inclusion-of-persons-with-disabilities-during-situations-of-risks-including-situations-of-armed-conflicts-and-disasters/; International Committee of the Red Cross, progress report on the implementation of the four-year action plan for the implementation of international humanitarian law established pursuant to resolution 2 of the thirty-first International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, document 32IC/15/17.1, p. 13, available at https://rcrcconference.org/app/uploads/2015/10/ 32IC-Progress-report-4-year-action-plan-on-IHL_EN.pdf; and pledge by the Government of New Zealand and the New Zealand Red Cross, “Disability-inclusive humanitarian action”, during the thirty-fourth International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, available at https://rcrcconference.org/pledge/disability-inclusive-humanitarian-action/. ↩

The operationalization of these legal obligations into concrete actions occurred at the World Humanitarian Summit, held in in Istanbul, Türkiye, in 2016, with the launch of the Charter on Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action. Since then, there has been a proliferation of normative guidance, plans and policy documents developed to translate the legal obligations into policy frameworks meant to guide the mainstreaming of disability into humanitarian action. The majority of this normative guidance for implementing disability-inclusive humanitarian action has been developed and designed by and/or for United Nations entities and major humanitarian actors.

Notable has been the creation of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee Guidelines on the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs County-based Pooled Funds Global Guidelines, and the Guidance on Strengthening Disability Inclusion in Humanitarian Response Plans. With United Nations-led humanitarian action representing the primary coordinating mechanism for humanitarian action during situations of risk worldwide, these documents represent key policy commitments to translating the legal obligations into disability-inclusive humanitarian action and guide the coordination of the international humanitarian response.

When a crisis occurs, the Emergency Relief Coordinator, the most senior United Nations official dedicated to humanitarian affairs, may designate the Resident Coordinator for the country concerned as Humanitarian Coordinator to lead and coordinate the efforts of both United Nations and non-United Nations humanitarian organizations. The Humanitarian Coordinator can request the activation of part or all of a cluster system, which consists of a voluntary group of humanitarian organizations (e.g. non-governmental organizations, United Nations agencies, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and government bodies involved in humanitarian response) that work on a specific technical area of humanitarian action.²⁰

20. Global Protection Cluster, “Humanitarian coordination and the cluster approach: a quick guide for local and national organizations”, 2020. ↩

Working closely with the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs to organize, coordinate and fund international responses to a humanitarian crisis, the Humanitarian Coordinator establishes a humanitarian country team to make operational decisions and identify strategic humanitarian issues. Twice a year, the team produces a humanitarian needs overview based on inputs and analysis from humanitarian actors, which informs strategic humanitarian response planning and the system-wide monitoring of needs. Using the findings of the humanitarian needs overview, the humanitarian country team then develops a humanitarian response plan, which, through evidence and analysis, identifies the most pressing humanitarian needs.

The humanitarian needs overview and the humanitarian response plan are key to informing the humanitarian programme cycle, which is a set of coordinated actions by humanitarian actors to improve the speed, effectiveness and predictability of their response to a crisis. These coordinated actions are a six-step process consisting of: analysis; planning; resource mobilization; implementation; monitoring and evaluation; and reporting. The purpose of the humanitarian programme cycle is to ensure that the humanitarian response is needs-based, coordinated and accountable to affected populations, as well as fostering collaboration among humanitarian actors using evidence-based data and analysis to assist in decision-making.

The strategic priorities identified in the humanitarian needs overview and the humanitarian response plan guide the raising and allocation of funds by the country-based pooled funds that are managed by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and used to address high-priority humanitarian needs. In the Office’s step-by-step practical guidance on how to prepare a humanitarian needs overview and a humanitarian response plan, reference is made to the reality that, while persons with disabilities broadly share similar risks, capacities and vulnerabilities with other population groups, there are differences that should be examined within the joint intersectional needs analysis of the humanitarian needs overview and the humanitarian response plan.²¹

21. United Nations, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, “Step-by-step practical guide for humanitarian needs overviews, humanitarian response plans and updates”, April 2020. ↩

Within the above-described framework of the humanitarian programme cycle, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, through the management of the country-based pooled funds, has shown a commitment to disability-inclusive humanitarian action since 2019. This commitment has translated into a tripling of the number of persons with disabilities reached through life-saving humanitarian action from 2019 to 2024.²² Progress has also been reported in the collection of disability-disaggregated data, participation of organizations of persons with disabilities, and incorporation of inclusive practices within project designs and budget allocation strategies.²³ Nevertheless, progress has remained uneven, fragmented and slow. Since 2024, visibility and resource allocation within the country-based pooled funds have declined notably, owing in part to the fact that previous policy commitments “were not institutionalized throughout governance structures, funding envelopes, or data systems, resulting in declining attention once project cycles ended or donor interest waned”.²⁴

22. Nino Gvetadze, Disability Inclusion across OHCA’s Country Funds, Phase 4 – Leave no one behind! (2025), p. 15. ↩
23. Ibid. ↩
24. Ibid., p. 21. ↩

The analysis conducted for the present report identified four principal barriers to disability-inclusive humanitarian assistance: data, meaningful participation, funding and accountability. These barriers continue to impede the effective inclusion of persons with disabilities across humanitarian preparedness, response and recovery efforts.

Lack of reliable and high-quality disability-disaggregated data was consistently listed by States, humanitarian actors, United Nations entities and organizations of persons with disabilities as the predominant challenge in the identification and inclusion of the actual needs and priorities of the disability community within humanitarian needs assessments, planning, programming and funding. This is despite the attempts that have been made since 2019 to collect disability-disaggregated data.

All country-based pooled funds began the collection of data to track the number of persons with disabilities targeted and reached by their projects in 2019, with subsequent improvements made in the ability to track disability data within the Country-Based Pooled Funds Data Hub.²⁵ In seeking to more accurately identify persons with disabilities and their needs, some humanitarian organizations have developed and applied data collection tools by incorporating the Washington Group on Disability Statistics short set of questions on functioning.²⁶ To further emphasize the need for disability-disaggregated data, guidance was published for the country-based pooled funds on strengthening disability inclusion, encouraging humanitarian actors to collect data on the barriers and risks faced by persons with disabilities, as well as their capacities and contributions. The guidance highlights the importance of using such data to inform evidence-based humanitarian priorities and ensure more inclusive responses.²⁷

25. Available at https://cbpf.data.unocha.org/. ↩
26. See https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-disability/data-collection-tools/. ↩
27. Country-based pooled funds, “Strengthening disability inclusion: 2022 global guidelines – guidance note”, April 2024. ↩

Despite these efforts, progress has not consistently translated into the collection of reliable and high-quality disability data. In some contexts, progress has stagnated or reversed, as previous commitments to the systematic collection and use of disability-disaggregated data have not been fully institutionalized within humanitarian data systems and practices. Persistent gaps in the availability and quality of disability data within humanitarian responses appear to be linked to several systemic challenges.²⁸ These include the absence of a dedicated disability marker to complement the gender and age marker used in the Data Hub; limited requirements for the systematic collection and use of disability-disaggregated data across humanitarian needs assessments, project implementation, monitoring reporting; the lack of a standardized tool to collect disability data; and limitations in existing disability-related indicators, which may not sufficiently capture the diversity of experiences of, barriers faced by and needs of persons with disabilities in humanitarian settings. Addressing these challenges would strengthen the evidence base necessary for inclusive humanitarian planning, resource allocation and accountability.²⁹

28. Funke and Dijkzeul, Disability Inclusion in Humanitarian Crises, pp. 68–72; Gvetadze, Disability Inclusion across OHCA’s Country Funds, pp. 9, 10 and 27; and based on information received through the responses to the call for inputs and expert consultations conducted for the report. ↩
29. Ibid. ↩

While the Washington Group on Disability Statistics short set of questions on functioning is widely recognized as an important tool for identifying persons with disabilities and generating comparable disability data, its use alone may not be sufficient to address data gaps in the humanitarian context. Humanitarian actors have noted that, during humanitarian emergencies, administering the short set of questions on functioning can be challenging when access to affected populations is constrained and opportunities for data collection are limited. This reality also aligns with guidance provided on the use of the short set of questions during emergencies, where it is noted that, even when there is a clear purpose for gathering disability-disaggregated data and the buy-in of key staff has been achieved, it still may not be feasible to collect such data.³⁰ Additionally, humanitarian actors have further noted that since the short set of questions is primarily a demographic tool, effective in estimating the prevalence of disability within a population, it provides limited information on the specific protection risks and access barriers faced by and the humanitarian needs of persons with disabilities. Although the data provided by the short set of questions does reach the field level, its interpretation and operationalization by humanitarian workers has been challenging due to limited knowledge, awareness and understanding of disability inclusion within workstreams.

30. Clarie F. O’Reilly and others, “Should you use the WG questions in your humanitarian programming? A tool to help you decide”, Washington Group of Disability Statistics, blog, 2023. ↩

This, however, does not mean that disability-disaggregated data cannot or should not be collected, but that complementary approaches are required to ensure that data collection adequately informs disability-inclusive humanitarian programming and responses. For example, information received from inputs highlighted the successful use of community-based approaches, led by organizations of persons with disabilities, to collect disability-disaggregated data on risks, access barriers and humanitarian needs. The involvement of organizations of persons with disabilities in the collection of this data contributes to awareness-raising, reduces stigma and helps improve the identification of persons with disabilities who are generally excluded from more traditional data collection systems. These successful community-based approaches to data collection were, unfortunately, reported as mostly ad hoc and dependent on other civil society initiatives.

Difficulty in accessing reliable disability data is further compounded by limitations in national disability statistics, which in some contexts may not fully reflect the actual number and location of persons with disabilities. As a result, humanitarian country teams and humanitarian organizations have often relied on the global disability prevalence estimate of 16 per cent as a planning assumption. While such estimates can provide a useful benchmark, their use causes humanitarian assistance for persons with disabilities to be reactive rather than context-specific, proactive and evidence-based.

Greater involvement of the disability community in data collection coupled with investment in the training of humanitarian staff on the purpose, value and translation of disability-disaggregated data collection have been highlighted as important factors in strengthening the quality and use of disability data across humanitarian responses.

Lack of meaningful participation and representation of persons with disabilities in humanitarian action, including through direct consultation in the decision-making and coordination structures of the humanitarian response led by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs was highlighted by organizations of persons with disabilities and disability-focused international non-governmental organizations as a significant challenge. This is despite the marked increase in the participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations within the governance structure of the advisory boards of certain country-based pooled funds and the establishment of disability inclusion coordination mechanisms in some contexts.³¹

31. Gvetadze, Disability Inclusion across OHCA’s Country Funds, p. 24; and Stephen Perry and Ulrike Last, “Mechanisms for coordination of disability inclusion in humanitarian action”, October 2023. ↩

In 2022 and again in 2024, progress was made in promoting the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in the governance and decision-making structures of country-based pooled funds. In particular, the funds for Lebanon, Myanmar, the Syrian Arab Republic, Ukraine, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and the occupied Palestinian territories undertook measures to strengthen disability inclusion by incorporating persons with disabilities and their representative organizations, disability inclusion experts and/or disability focal points on fund advisory boards and in review committees and technical working groups.³² As a result of these efforts, the needs of persons with disabilities have been reflected in allocation priorities and disability indicators have been integrated into humanitarian response plans.

32. Gvetadze, Disability Inclusion across OHCA’s Country Funds. ↩

Additionally, progress towards meaningful participation within humanitarian coordination structures was made through the establishment of disability-inclusive coordination mechanisms. Hosted primarily by the Global Protection Cluster, led by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, these disability-related coordination mechanisms seek to share experiences on how to improve disability-inclusive humanitarian programming and assistance.³³ A global mapping study of disability-inclusive coordination mechanisms found that, out of 28 countries, 17 have some evidence of disability-related coordination mechanisms.³⁴ Of these disability-related coordination mechanisms, 40 per cent of them had formal organizational structures or common workplans and terms of reference, with most having been in operation for only about two years. Membership in these mechanisms was described as being broadly inclusive and open to any operational entity that had an interest in disability-inclusive programming.³⁵

33. Global Protection Cluster, “Protection in a climate of change: strategic framework 2020–2024”, 24 December 2019, p. 7. ↩
34. Stephen Perry, “Global mapping of disability inclusion coordination mechanisms in humanitarian contexts”, October 2023, p. 6. ↩
35. Ibid., p. 9. ↩

Notwithstanding this progress, knowledge and implementation gaps persist regarding the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities across all phases of humanitarian response. For example, the global mapping study found that, of the 17 disability-related coordination mechanisms identified, only 7 had organizations of persons with disabilities as members, and of those, there were only 3 that showed evidence of leadership by organizations of persons with disabilities.³⁶ There is also limited evidence, beyond the above-mentioned disability-inclusive coordination mechanisms, of the systematic and sustained involvement of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in humanitarian decision-making, coordination, needs assessments and planning processes.³⁷ These challenges are partially attributable to the fact that, unlike gender equality or protection from sexual exploitation and abuse, disability inclusion has not been consistently recognized and operationalized as a cross-cutting priority within the humanitarian coordination architecture led by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, with the notable exception of the Global Protection Cluster.³⁸

36. Ibid., pp. 9 and 10. ↩
37. Funke and Dijkzeul, Disability Inclusion in Humanitarian Crises. ↩
38. Perry and Last, “Mechanisms for coordination of disability inclusion”, p. 6. ↩

It has been reported that much of the progress towards meaningful participation was not due to structural changes, but instead was reliant on individuals with an interest in disability inclusion already working within humanitarian organizations and the formal humanitarian system led by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs to champion and take forward the agenda of disability inclusion through meaningful participation.³⁹ This, coupled with the reality of high staff turnover and a lack of a concerted commitment by humanitarian organizations to have and maintain a disability focal point, has resulted in a lack of consistent avenues for the meaningful participation of and coordination with persons with disabilities and their representative organizations.⁴⁰

39. Ibid. ↩
40. Ibid. ↩

In relation to the establishment and functioning of disability-related coordination mechanisms, there is heavy reliance on the involvement of disability-focused international non-governmental organizations (e.g. Humanity and Inclusion, Global Disability Inclusion, HelpAge International) to support the governance and functioning of such mechanisms, to provide the necessary funding and to gain access to the decision-making mechanisms of the United Nations-led humanitarian response and of governmental structures. Even with this support, disability inclusion coordination mechanisms remain chronically underfunded, which limits their overall impact. Moreover, organizations of persons with disabilities have also raised the following challenges to meaningful participation: lack of systematic recognition as equal partners; ad hoc and tokenistic participation; accessibility barriers (e.g. physical, informational and financial) even when they are invited to participate; and persistent stigma and discrimination leading to exclusion and a perception of persons with disabilities as mere beneficiaries of aid rather than agents of change.

States and donors have identified certain persistent barriers to the meaningful participation of organizations of persons with disabilities. The institutional capacities of organizations of persons with disabilities, often characterized by small, community-based structures with limited administrative, financial and compliance systems, in many circumstances constrain their ability to meet donor due diligence requirements and United Nations partnership standards, thereby limiting opportunities to serve as the primary implementing partners. In addition, most organizations of persons with disabilities have traditionally focused on human rights and domestic challenges and are unfamiliar with the structure and coordination mechanisms of international humanitarian responses, such as those led by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which can impede their opportunity for engagement in these often highly technical humanitarian processes. Donors and humanitarian actors frequently require partners capable of delivering assistance rapidly and at large scale, while many organizations of persons with disabilities are small and geographically limited. Lastly, humanitarian actors do not always have sufficient awareness of the expertise, services and added value that organizations of persons with disabilities can provide to assist in ensuring disability-inclusive humanitarian action.

Recognition of disability inclusion as a cross-cutting issue by humanitarian actors within the humanitarian organizational structure led by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has been identified as essential to the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in coordination and decision-making mechanisms. Furthermore, the establishment of local networks of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations that can engage with regional and international coordination and decision-making mechanisms has been identified as critical to advancing disability inclusion. Equally important are the recruitment of dedicated disability inclusion personnel within humanitarian organizations and the allocation of adequate resources and funding to address barriers to meaningful participation. Together, these measures are essential to sustaining and building on the progress achieved to date, which remains fragile and uneven.

Lack of dedicated, predictable, long-term and flexible funding, and a reliance on short-term financing, means that organizations of persons with disabilities struggle to sustain engagement, build staff capacity and contribute to coordination processes. This is despite the targeted allocations of funding by certain country-based pooled funds for multi-year disability inclusion funding, efforts to embed disability inclusion throughout funding cycles, the prioritization of organizations of persons with disabilities for subgranting and the commitment to use a certain percentage of funding for organizations of persons with disabilities.⁴¹

41. Gvetadze, Disability Inclusion across OHCA’s Country Funds. ↩

While funding reductions across the humanitarian sector since 2024 have significantly constrained operational capacity and programme delivery, analyses and reporting indicate that disability-focused humanitarian programming is often the first to be deprioritized, scaled back or discontinued when resources become limited. This trend risks undermining efforts to advance disability inclusion and may further exacerbate the exclusion of persons with disabilities from humanitarian assistance and protection.⁴² For example, reduced humanitarian funding has led to staff reductions across some mainstream humanitarian organizations, including among personnel dedicated to disability inclusion, thereby diminishing institutional capacity and the availability of disability inclusion focal points.

42. Disability Reference Group, “Impact of funding cuts on persons with disabilities”, June 2025. ↩

In the context of constrained humanitarian resources, disability inclusion activities are at times perceived as supplementary rather than integral to the delivery of life-saving assistance. As a result, disability-focused measures may be more vulnerable to reprioritization, scaling-back or discontinuation during budget reduction exercises. This challenge is further compounded by the fact that disability inclusion is not systematically integrated as a cross-cutting priority across the humanitarian coordination architecture led by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which may limit its consistent consideration throughout humanitarian planning, coordination and funding processes.⁴³

43. Ibid. ↩

Beyond current funding cuts, there remain structural issues that continue to prevent sufficient financing of disability-inclusive humanitarian action. For example, most humanitarian organizations do not have specific funds established for or systems able to track or receive funding for disability inclusion.⁴⁴ Furthermore, these organizations have not developed internal budget models with the capability of tagging and tracking funding for disability inclusion within their programming, which differs from the way in which gender-related funding has been integrated into the budget, tracking and tagging systems of humanitarian organizations.⁴⁵

44. This is based on information received through the responses to the call for inputs. See also Tasneem Mowjee and Andy Featherstone, “Independent review of the four priority underfunded areas for the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF)”, 10 October 2020. ↩
45. Ibid. ↩

Organizations of persons with disabilities report a general absence of tailored funding streams, complex funding proposal formats and overly demanding eligibility criteria (e.g. United Nations partnership standards) inherently disadvantage them when competing with other civil society organizations. These barriers, coupled with the tendency of funding mechanisms to favour large international actors, further limit access to funding and often relegate organizations of persons to the role of subgrantee. This has forced organizations of persons with disabilities to shift their operations away from providing disability-inclusive coordination and technical analysis of humanitarian action to focus on service provision in order to allow them to get funding through subgrants.

Disability-focused international non-governmental organizations have stepped in to fill some of this funding gap, for example, through the financing of disability-related coordination mechanisms. However, disability-inclusive coordination and capacity-building for humanitarian organizations and organizations of persons with disabilities requires dedicated funding and a recognition that disability-focused programming is indeed life-saving for persons with disabilities.

Strong accountability systems for disability inclusion at all levels of governance, leadership and funding would ensure implementation, transparency, shared ownership and equitable participation. Disability inclusion within the country-based pooled funds, since 2021, has been linked to protection, localization agendas and accountability to affected persons.

However, accountability for disability inclusion has shown the least progress and remains weak, and in some respects has regressed. For example, although disability inclusion is embedded in accountability to affected persons frameworks, including complaints, feedback and response mechanisms, persons with disabilities and their representative organizations have reported that such mechanisms are not always fully accessible (e.g. websites, forms, hotlines and complex instructions), which may restrict the disability community from providing feedback and making complaints. Similarly, within Humanitarian Financing Units in country offices of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which are responsible for supporting accountability, monitoring and compliance within humanitarian financing processes, disability inclusion is often undertaken as part of broader staff responsibilities rather than through dedicated expertise or functions, potentially limiting the consistency and depth of attention given to disability inclusion throughout the funding cycle.⁴⁶

46. Gvetadze, Disability Inclusion across OHCA’s Country Funds. ↩

Further hindering effective accountability is the lack of a “disability marker” for all projects within humanitarian response plans. The establishment of a disability marker has been shown to strengthen accountability by ensuring that disability inclusion becomes a systematic requirement that is institutionalized and not dependent on individual champions. For example, although a voluntary policy tool, the disability marker introduced by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development provides the ability to precisely track how disability is mainstreamed in international cooperation and humanitarian action projects.⁴⁷ The disability marker policy tool has been described as a powerful advocacy and accountability instrument for tracking and providing visibility on achieving disability-inclusive humanitarian action.⁴⁸

47. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “The OECD-DAC policy marker on the inclusion and empowerment of persons with disabilities: handbook for data reporters and users”, DCD/DAC/STAT(2020)48, 10 December 2020, p. 10. ↩
48. Elizabth Lockwood, “OECD DAC policy marker on inclusion and empowerment of persons with disabilities”, CBM Global Disability Inclusion presentation, 7 November 2025. ↩

Also notable is the continued reliance in many contexts on organizations of persons with disabilities to support accountability for disability inclusion, rather than fully institutionalizing disability inclusion accountability frameworks within humanitarian organizations themselves. While meaningful consultation and engagement with persons with disabilities and representative organizations throughout assessments, planning and programme design remain essential and recognized good practice, the creation of internal accountability mechanisms on disability inclusion is critical to ensuring that disability inclusion is systematically embedded across humanitarian action and not treated as discretionary.

Additionally, stakeholders have noted a reduction in the explicit integration of disability inclusion within certain accountability frameworks. For example, references to disability inclusion that were previously reflected in the terms of reference for the country-based pooled funds are reported to be absent in some recent iterations.⁴⁹ This may contribute to accountability gaps at the leadership level, as the absence of specific commitments can limit the extent to which disability inclusion is systematically monitored, reported on and prioritized by humanitarian coordinators/resident coordinators and humanitarian country teams. Strengthening the integration of disability inclusion within relevant governance and accountability frameworks can help reinforce leadership responsibility and promote more consistent implementation across humanitarian responses.

49. This is based on information received through the responses to the call for inputs and expert consultations conducted for the report. ↩

Where disability inclusion has not been consistently reinforced through accountability, governance, data and funding mechanisms, the visibility of, interest in and ambition to seek to accomplish disability-inclusive humanitarian action decline over time.

In March 2025, the Emergency Relief Coordinator announced the start of a humanitarian reset, with the goal of shifting decision-making power and resources to the local actors and communities in order to address the greatest need and be more accountable to the people who the humanitarian assistance is meant to serve. The humanitarian reset is expected to have far-reaching implications for the way humanitarian responses led by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs are structured, coordinated, funded and implemented. It therefore presents both an opportunity and risks for the advancement of disability-inclusive humanitarian action.

There was broad and consistent agreement across submissions from States, humanitarian organizations, United Nations entities and organizations of persons with disabilities that the humanitarian reset presents a significant opportunity to advance disability inclusion within the humanitarian system. At the same time, stakeholders expressed serious concerns regarding a range of risks that the restructuring process may pose to existing commitments, capacities and accountability mechanisms for disability inclusion across the humanitarian ecosystem.

If implemented with a rights-based approach, the humanitarian reset could help overcome structural barriers to disability inclusion by recognizing the rights and needs of persons with disabilities as a central consideration in humanitarian prioritization, coordination, programming and resource allocation, rather than as a cross-cutting issue addressed on an ad hoc basis. Commitment to localization in decision-making, resource allocation and accountability is recognized as a significant opportunity for embedding disability inclusion into humanitarian action. A focus on reorienting decision-making and resources to local entities could empower organizations of persons with disabilities to ensure that the needs of the disability community are better addressed.

The reprioritization towards life-saving assistance provides the opportunity to shift the perception of disability inclusion away from being an optional “add-on” to becoming a standard aspect of humanitarian programming and assistance. This outcome, though, will be possible only if the needs of persons with disabilities and disability-inclusive action are explicitly mentioned as a priority within the humanitarian reset frameworks.

Stakeholders underscored that, although the humanitarian reset seeks to enhance efficiency, simplify processes and accelerate humanitarian delivery, these objectives must be balanced against the imperative to maintain the quality, inclusiveness and accountability of humanitarian action. The absence of persons with disabilities from the humanitarian reset road map was widely identified as a significant concern. Contributors warned that, unless disability inclusion is explicitly embedded in the reform process, the reset risks not only consolidating the regression observed since 2024, but also reversing the gains made since 2019 towards more disability-inclusive humanitarian action.

Particularly concerning is the lack of mention of persons with disabilities in the road map’s vision statement, which calls for specific protection and attention to be paid to women and girls. Persons with disabilities are also not listed as a group to whom attention must be paid when providing accountability to crisis-affected people.⁵⁰ These concerns were echoed throughout the inputs received, particularly regarding the emphasis on localization and prioritization of life-saving assistance as the primary response to deficiencies within the United Nations-led humanitarian system.

50. Inter-Agency Standing Committee, “Humanitarian reset road map”, 10 November 2025. ↩

Localization, although a powerful tool that has the potential to advance disability inclusion, nevertheless requires an intentional effort to include persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in planning, coordination, resource mobilization, implementation, monitoring and reporting. Failure to make this effort risks continued marginalization and exclusion of persons with disabilities within the new system, given that disability inclusion has not yet been structurally integrated throughout the current system.

Reprioritization towards life-saving assistance, while necessary in a resource-constrained environment, risks prioritizing reach over the quality and inclusiveness of assistance. Disability inclusion is still often viewed as a costly or non-essential component of humanitarian action, creating tension with approaches focused on maximizing coverage at the lowest cost. Unless the humanitarian reset explicitly recognizes disability inclusion as an integral element of life-saving assistance, there is a significant risk that persons with disabilities will be deprioritized in humanitarian action.

Given the lack of consideration of disability inclusion at this current stage, the humanitarian reset is skewing towards having a negative impact on the integration of disability inclusion into humanitarian action. For this reason, safeguards need to be put in place, and the way forward must be clearly inclusive of persons with disabilities.

Regarding the commitment to localization, stakeholders emphasized that persons with disabilities and their representative organizations, as well as other marginalized populations, should be directly involved in discussions and decision-making processes surrounding the localization agenda. Stakeholders have also called for dedicated, ring-fenced funding for disability inclusion within the country-based pooled funds and the programming of humanitarian actors.

Moving forward, the humanitarian reset should ensure the meaningful participation and consultation of the Reference Group on Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action. Given its technical expertise, the Reference Group is well positioned to support the integration of disability inclusion throughout the reform process and to help prevent regression, while safeguarding the progress achieved in advancing disability-inclusive humanitarian action.

Since the adoption of the Charter on Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action in 2016, significant progress has been made towards more disability-inclusive humanitarian action. Greater recognition of the rights of persons with disabilities, increased commitments across the humanitarian system and the development of practical tools and guidance have helped advance inclusion in policy and practice. These achievements reflect sustained efforts by States, humanitarian actors, persons with disabilities and their representative organizations, and should not be understated. Yet progress remains uneven and fragile. As the humanitarian system undergoes far-reaching reforms, it is imperative that gains achieved over the past decade are not weakened by an exclusive focus on efficiency, cost-effectiveness or operational streamlining. Disability inclusion must be treated not as an optional consideration, but as a core component of principled, effective and rights-based humanitarian action.

The humanitarian reset marks a pivotal moment for the future of disability-inclusive humanitarian action. It presents an important opportunity to address longstanding structural barriers through stronger localization, more meaningful participation and enhanced accountability. At the same time, it carries significant risks if disability inclusion is not deliberately and systematically embedded within ongoing reforms. The rights and perspectives of persons with disabilities must be recognized as indispensable to humanitarian preparedness, response, recovery and resilience-building efforts. Ensuring the systematic collection and use of disability-disaggregated data, the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in decision-making, adequate and predictable funding and robust accountability mechanisms will be critical to preserving hard-won gains and building a humanitarian system that is more inclusive, effective and responsive to those most at risk. Only through such measures can the commitment to leave no one behind be translated into reality for persons with disabilities affected by humanitarian crises.

The Special Rapporteur therefore calls upon States, humanitarian actors, donors and organizations of persons with disabilities to put in place safeguards that protect, consolidate and advance disability-inclusive humanitarian action in the years ahead.

In this regard, the Special Rapporteur calls upon States to:
(a) Recognize disability-inclusive humanitarian action as a legal obligation under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including articles 11 and 32, and as an essential component of life-saving humanitarian assistance;
(b) Require the systematic collection, analysis and use of data disaggregated by disability, sex and age across all phases of humanitarian action, in consultation with organizations of persons with disabilities;
(c) Ensure that humanitarian financing, funding criteria and risk assessments systematically incorporate disability inclusion and accessibility requirements;
(d) Provide predictable and multi-year funding for disability-inclusive humanitarian action, including support for accessibility, reasonable accommodation and the participation of organizations of persons with disabilities;
(e) Require partners receiving humanitarian funding to demonstrate disability inclusion in programme design, implementation and reporting, and establish accountability measures for non-compliance;
(f) Ensure the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in humanitarian preparedness, response, recovery and reconstruction efforts;
(g) Strengthen the inclusion of disability perspectives in relevant multilateral processes, including General Assembly, Human Rights Council and Security Council resolutions, commissions of inquiry and fact-finding missions;
(h) Utilize Security Council resolution 2475 (2019) to strengthen accountability for disability inclusion in humanitarian responses in situations of armed conflict.

The Special Rapporteur calls upon the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, United Nations entities, humanitarian coordinators, resident coordinators and humanitarian country teams to:
(a) Institutionalize disability inclusion as a cross-cutting priority across humanitarian coordination, planning, financing and accountability frameworks;
(b) Require the systematic collection, analysis and use of data disaggregated by disability, sex and age within humanitarian needs assessments, response plans and monitoring systems;
(c) Develop common indicators and establish a disability marker to track funding, participation and outcomes related to disability inclusion;
(d) Ensure the meaningful and sustained participation of organizations of persons with disabilities in humanitarian decision-making and coordination structures, including clusters and country-based pooled fund advisory boards;
(e) Establish dedicated disability inclusion expertise and focal points at global, regional and country levels;
(f) Ensure that accountability, complaints and feedback mechanisms are fully accessible to persons with disabilities;
(g) Provide regular training on disability-inclusive humanitarian action for humanitarian personnel;
(h) Recognize organizations of persons with disabilities as essential humanitarian actors and strategic partners throughout the humanitarian programme cycle.

The Special Rapporteur calls upon organizations of persons with disabilities to:
(a) Strengthen their engagement with humanitarian coordination mechanisms at the local, national, regional and international levels;
(b) Promote the leadership and meaningful participation of persons with disabilities throughout humanitarian preparedness, response, recovery and monitoring processes;
(c) Contribute to the development of disability-inclusive standards, indicators, data-collection methodologies and accountability frameworks;
(d) Support community-based data collection, validation and monitoring to ensure humanitarian responses reflect the lived experiences and priorities of persons with disabilities;
(e) Build partnerships and coalitions to strengthen advocacy, technical engagement and accountability;
(f) Promote the inclusion and leadership of underrepresented groups, including women and girls with disabilities, older persons with disabilities, Indigenous persons with disabilities and persons with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities;
(g) Engage actively in humanitarian reform processes, including the humanitarian reset.

The Special Rapporteur calls upon donors, international and national non-governmental organizations and humanitarian actors to:
(a) Adopt policies and guidance that embed disability inclusion across all humanitarian operations;
(b) Integrate disability inclusion into funding decisions, programme design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation;
(c) Provide flexible and multi-year funding, including dedicated resources for accessibility, reasonable accommodation and the participation of organizations of persons with disabilities;
(d) Recognize disability inclusion as life-saving assistance and reflect this in funding and operational priorities;
(e) Collect and use disability-disaggregated data to inform programming and measure outcomes;
(f) Establish equitable partnerships with organizations of persons with disabilities, including through direct funding, co-design and shared decision-making;
(g) Invest in staff capacity on disability-inclusive humanitarian action and publicly report on progress towards disability inclusion.

Lastly, the Special Rapporteur urges all stakeholders involved in the humanitarian reset to:
(a) Ensure that disability inclusion is fully integrated across humanitarian reform efforts, including localization, leadership, coordination, financing and accountability mechanisms;
(b) Guarantee the meaningful participation and leadership of organizations of persons with disabilities in humanitarian decision-making, implementation and evaluation processes, including through access to direct funding;
(c) Strengthen monitoring and accountability by establishing measurable indicators, clear responsibilities and regular reporting on disability inclusion;
(d) Promote the systematic collection and use of disability-, age- and sex-disaggregated data to inform inclusive humanitarian action;
(e) Safeguard and advance existing commitments to disability-inclusive humanitarian action, ensuring that efficiency and reform measures do not undermine the rights, inclusion and protection of persons with disabilities.