The humanitarian reset refers to the proposed overhaul of the humanitarian aid system aimed at improving efficiency and effectiveness in response to “a profound crisis of legitimacy, morale, and funding”. The reset was instigated by Tom Fletcher, the Emergency Relief Chief on 10 March 2025. In a letter to the IASC Principals, he outlined his vision:
“We must both regroup and renew at the same time. I propose we do so on the foundation of three strategic priorities: the best possible crisis response with the resources we have; urgent work to reform and reimagine how we work; and shift power to our humanitarian leaders in country, and the people we serve.”
Civil society representatives from the Global North and South, have questioned whether the reset will achieve the reform it sets out achieve, and what the consequences of these reforms are on the most vulnerable. Discussions on key concerns have focused on financial stress, decisions being made without collective agreement, the resistance to change in the system, and the side lining of NGOs.
It’s clear that climate action must be at the centre of the humanitarian reset.
In a progress statement by Tom Fletcher in June, he discussed the lack of time and space to consider a radical reset and posed high level questions on the scalability of cash, data management, partnerships and crucially:
“How do we bring together scaled up anticipatory action and a green humanitarian reset that is ready for the climate challenges ahead?”
HAG has long explored how humanitarian action affects the environment and how humanitarian actors can move towards a tangibly greener response. The ‘Greening the System’ programme of work analysed interrelated elements that are required for change that could inform the greening of the humanitarian reset, most notably the importance of a locally grounded understanding of the problems, and solutions that focus on improved outcomes for affected communities.
It is unclear how locally informed and co-constructed the reset will be, and therefore imperative to keep amplifying local stories of greening humanitarianism in this changing context. An example from Australia centres on Victoria’s Black Summer bushfires. Victoria’s experience offers a case study in why “greening” the humanitarian system is essential. By examining how the bushfire response impacted the environment and how community-led recovery efforts helped restore it, we can begin to chart a path toward a more sustainable humanitarian “reset” that leaves no legacy of environmental degradation.
Humanitarianism as a Cause of Environmental Degradation
During a crisis, saving lives and delivering relief is the top priority. However, even life-saving operations can leave a heavy environmental footprint. In the wake of Black Summer, Victorians saw how certain relief efforts created new environmental problems. One example was the well-meaning flood of donated goods. Australians across the country sent truckloads of clothes, food, and household items to fire-affected towns. This outpouring of generosity, while heartfelt, became a “second disaster” – local halls and warehouses overflowed with unsolicited donations that went unused. In one East Gippsland town, well-wishers shipped 10,000 unwanted apples when what residents really needed was money. Mountains of excess goods with nowhere to go diverted local resources and ultimately became a waste-disposal headache rather than help.
The bushfire clean-up operation itself also carried an environmental cost. Clearing the rubble of hundreds of incinerated homes was a massive logistical mission. Demolishing over 2,500 fire-ravaged structures and hauling away 75,000 tonnes of debris was necessary, but it generated enormous waste. On average, each destroyed property required nine truckloads of debris removal. All told, clean-up trucks logged a staggering 1.2 million kilometers transporting contaminated waste to landfills – burning immense amounts of diesel and using plastic liners for every load. It was an essential operation, but it came with a heavy environmental price tag.
In short, disaster aid that ignores sustainability can compound environmental harm. Clearly, the humanitarian imperative to “do no harm” must extend to the environment as well.
How Greening the Humanitarian System Helps
Greening humanitarianism means aligning relief and recovery efforts with environmental sustainability. As Humanitarian Advisory Group’s research has outlined, key areas for greening humanitarian actions include sustainable environmental management, low-carbon development, and renewable energy use—practices Victoria has begun to adopt. After Black Summer, local communities embraced nature-based solutions, informed by frameworks such as those promoted by HAG, demonstrating clearly that environmental sustainability leads directly to stronger humanitarian outcomes.
A first step was rethinking disaster donations and logistics through a sustainability lens. Relief coordinators urged the public to donate money to bushfire recovery funds or support local businesses, rather than sending goods. Cash donations could be used to purchase exactly what communities needed, reducing the waste and emissions from transporting mountains of unsolicited items.
Crucially, Victoria’s recovery embraced the idea that healing the environment is part of healing the community. Rather than treating environmental recovery as an afterthought, officials and residents made it a central pillar of the rebuild. Bushfire Recovery Victoria’s state plan explicitly prioritized restoring biodiversity and involving Traditional Owners and locals in rehabilitating the land. This opened the door for community-led initiatives to “green” the recovery process. Volunteers, Land care groups, and Indigenous rangers mobilized to rescue injured wildlife and replant scorched forests in burned areas. These efforts were bolstered by government grants and NGOs, which installed nest boxes to replace lost tree hollows and trained citizen scientists to track returning wildlife.
Such nature-based recovery projects had dual benefits. Environmentally, they sped up the regeneration of habitats and protected vulnerable species after the fires. Socially, they gave survivors a constructive role in restoring their own surroundings. Studies after Black Summer found that community engagement with nature significantly improved survivors’ mental health and well-being. Watching green shoots emerge and wildlife return was deeply therapeutic for people who had witnessed so much destruction. Activities like community tree plantings, cultural “Healing Country” visits, and art therapy with burnt bush materials helped residents reconnect with the landscape. In essence, greening the response helped both the land and the people recover together.
How to Green the New Humanitarian Reset
As the humanitarian system resets, Victoria’s community-led approach offers crucial lessons. Drawing on recommendations made by Humanitarian Advisory Group’s ‘Greening the System’ framework, practical steps should include embedding environmental criteria in humanitarian standards, empowering local leadership in environmental management, and fostering partnerships between environmental and humanitarian actors.
The reset humanitarian movement needs to be rooted in the communities it serves. Victoria’s Black Summer shows that healing the environment is part of healing the community. That humanitarian action aligned with environmental principles is not a luxury – it’s a force multiplier. It prevents humanitarian assistance from inadvertently causing new harm and strengthens resilience for the future. By conserving the ecosystems that communities depend on, green humanitarian practice also safeguards livelihoods and cultural values tied to the land.
Image 2: Mallacoota residents discuss vegetation management during a visit to bush land in local areas.
While there is a stated commitment to listening to and embedding local participation, many organisations and commentators argue that the current humanitarian reset is not adequately involving affected communities, with some feeling the process remains too UN-centric and ignores the critical voices of crisis-affected communities. Without these local stories it is unclear how a green humanitarian reset will be ready for the climate challenges ahead.
