- Saudi Arabia Says Global Assistance Has Exceeded $145bn, Urges Shift from Relief to Recovery
Saudi Arabia says it has provided more than $145 billion in assistance to 175 countries, a figure the kingdom’s humanitarian leadership used this week to press for a change in how the world supports fragile and frontier economies: from repeated emergency relief towards locally led recovery backed by longer-term finance.
Dr Abdullah Al Rabeeah, adviser to the Saudi Royal Court and supervisor general of the King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Center (KSrelief), made the case during a World Economic Forum discussion in Brussels.
He said the kingdom’s assistance had reached more than 175 countries, while KSrelief had carried out more than 4,000 projects worth over $8.5 billion in 113 countries.
The figures describe two different scales of activity. The $145 billion is Saudi Arabia’s reported cumulative assistance across its wider aid effort. KSrelief’s $8.5 billion represents projects delivered by one institution.
Saudi Arabia’s aid platform currently reports a total of $145.87 billion across 175 beneficiary countries. Its records include humanitarian, development and charitable projects, as well as contributions and services for visitors and refugees. The platform also records cash and in-kind grants, concessional loans, commitments and disbursements.
That accounting matters. The $145 billion figure should not be read as a single pool of cash distributed by KSrelief, or as an annual aid budget. It aggregates assistance delivered through multiple Saudi entities over time, and combines different types of support.
The scale is substantial, but understanding its development impact requires looking beyond the headline total to the recipients, projects, terms and results.
Al Rabeeah’s argument was that the international response to fragile and frontier markets must change alongside the scale of need. Emergency grants remain essential when conflict, displacement or disaster threatens lives.
But aid alone cannot rebuild economies, create reliable public services or establish the conditions for private investment. He called for international partners to move beyond viewing fragile states chiefly as places of dependency and recognise their potential for locally driven growth and resilience.
The appeal comes as humanitarian needs compete for limited public and donor funds. Al Rabeeah argued that grants alone cannot close widening financing gaps. He urged the use of blended finance, public-private risk-sharing and private capital to support investment in higher-risk markets.
These tools could help finance projects that traditional investors might avoid because of political instability, weak infrastructure or uncertain returns. But the proposal also raises a difficult question: how can investment be mobilised without transferring excessive risk to already vulnerable governments and communities?
The answer depends partly on what the finance supports and who is accountable for it. Private capital may help build infrastructure, energy systems, transport links and businesses that create jobs. Yet projects designed mainly around investor returns can fail to meet basic needs or leave local communities with long-term liabilities.
Public institutions and development partners would need to set clear priorities, share risks transparently and ensure that projects strengthen local capacity rather than deepen reliance on external finance.
Al Rabeeah also identified humanitarian access and respect for international law as conditions for recovery.
Aid cannot reach people safely when relief routes are blocked, workers are threatened or civilians are exposed to continued violence. Nor can local economies recover when people and goods cannot move securely. His call for “safe, sustained, and unimpeded humanitarian access” places the political and security environment alongside funding as a prerequisite for development.
His third priority was to strengthen local relief efforts without adding burdens to the communities they serve. Local organisations often understand the needs, languages and constraints of affected populations better than external agencies.
But relying on them without adequate funding, protection and decision-making power can shift responsibility without providing the means to act.
Localisation, in that sense, must involve more than subcontracting delivery: it requires local organisations and communities to influence priorities and maintain a meaningful role in implementation.
Saudi Arabia’s overall assistance total also sits within a broader development-finance picture. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reported that Saudi Arabia provided $5.6 billion in official development assistance in 2024, equal to 0.45% of gross national income. It said 91% of that annual ODA was delivered as grants and 9% as loans.
The OECD’s annual measure and the kingdom’s cumulative aid-platform total use different timeframes and accounting scopes; they should not be directly compared. The annual figures nevertheless offer a separate measure of the scale and composition of Saudi development assistance in a single year.
The geography of Saudi support has also been shaped by the kingdom’s development and foreign-policy priorities. The OECD says Saudi Arabia’s cooperation includes humanitarian assistance through KSrelief and concessional development loans through the Saudi Fund for Development.
Its portfolio covers humanitarian relief, infrastructure and sustainable development. This institutional breadth helps explain why the national $145 billion total extends well beyond the projects of the humanitarian centre alone.
For fragile economies, the shift Al Rabeeah advocates would require a longer view of aid effectiveness. Immediate relief can prevent hunger, disease and displacement from worsening.
Recovery, however, depends on whether assistance helps restore livelihoods, maintain essential services and support institutions capable of managing future shocks.
Private investment can contribute, but it cannot substitute for public services or political settlements. And finance on its own cannot overcome insecurity or restrictions on humanitarian access.
Saudi Arabia’s figures are a statement of the breadth of its global assistance. The more consequential test is whether that support, alongside resources from other donors and investors, helps countries move towards greater self-reliance.
Turning emergency response into durable recovery will require funding that reaches local actors, investment that serves public priorities and access that allows both aid and economic activity to function.
The kingdom’s call for blended finance is therefore also a call to define what success should mean in fragile markets. It cannot be measured only by the amount committed or the number of projects launched.
The lasting measure will be whether communities gain safer access to services, stronger livelihoods and a greater ability to withstand the next crisis.
