Rebuilding Before the War Ends: UNDP’s $50 Million Bet on Recovery in Crisis Zones

The United Nations Development Programme and the Government of the Republic of Korea have launched a $50 million second phase of the R.E.V.I.V.E. initiative, targeting approximately 3.8 million people across six conflict- and crisis-affected countries between July 2026 and July 2027. By combining infrastructure repairs, emergency employment, livelihood support and technology-assisted assessments, the programme reflects a wider effort to prevent communities from remaining trapped between immediate humanitarian relief and long-term development assistance.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Government of the Republic of Korea are investing $50 million in an effort to help communities begin rebuilding while conflict and humanitarian emergencies are still unfolding. The second phase of the Relief, Employment and Vital Infrastructure for the Vulnerable in Emergencies (R.E.V.I.V.E.) initiative will combine emergency employment, infrastructure repairs, livelihood support and technology-assisted assessments across six crisis-affected settings, reflecting a growing recognition that relief alone cannot sustain communities trapped in prolonged instability.

The new phase of the initiative will run from July 2026 to July 2027. It is expected to benefit approximately 3.8 million people, including 1.35 million direct beneficiaries and 2.5 million people who may benefit indirectly, across Afghanistan, Gaza in the State of Palestine, Myanmar, Sudan, South Sudan and Syria. The programme also retains the flexibility to expand into other countries if new crises emerge.

R.E.V.I.V.E. is designed to address one of the most persistent weaknesses in the international crisis-response system: the gap between immediate humanitarian relief and longer-term development.

Emergency assistance can provide food, shelter, healthcare and protection, but communities affected by prolonged conflict also need functioning roads, public facilities, jobs, local markets and basic institutions. When those systems remain damaged, families can become dependent on repeated rounds of humanitarian support even after the most immediate emergency has passed.

UNDP argues that this gap is becoming harder to ignore as crises last longer, needs increase and humanitarian funding falls short. Beginning recovery work earlier may help communities regain a measure of economic and social stability before displacement, unemployment and institutional decline become more deeply entrenched.

Turning Rubble Into Work and Work Into Recovery

R.E.V.I.V.E. Phase II will focus on restoring essential infrastructure, creating emergency employment, supporting livelihoods and helping local economies resume activity. It will also seek to strengthen local institutions so that recovery is not planned entirely by external actors.

Infrastructure rehabilitation and employment can reinforce each other. Repairing community facilities can restore access to services while providing temporary income to residents. Clearing debris can reopen neighbourhoods while generating work. Livelihood support can help households and small enterprises resume economic activity where markets have been disrupted.

The programme builds on its first phase, implemented from July 2025 to June 2026. According to UNDP, Phase I cleared more than 719,000 tonnes of debris and rehabilitated over 10,000 community infrastructure assets. It also improved shelter for more than 52,000 people, expanded access to essential services for over 508,000 people and supported improved livelihood opportunities for more than 73,000 people.

These figures demonstrate the scale of the activities delivered, but the second phase will face a more demanding test: whether visible outputs can produce durable recovery. The number of facilities repaired or jobs created is important, but it does not reveal how long those assets remain functional, whether temporary employment leads to sustained income or whether local institutions can maintain restored services after international funding ends.

The initiative's expansion into Sudan and South Sudan will bring these questions into particularly fragile environments. In both countries, the programme intends to connect infrastructure rehabilitation with employment, livelihood restoration and community-led planning. Its effectiveness will depend on whether local priorities can shape implementation and whether gains can be protected from renewed disruption.

AI Can Find the Damage, But Can It See the Most Vulnerable?

A key feature of Phase II is the use of AI-powered RAPIDA assessments to identify areas with the greatest needs and guide faster, more targeted interventions.

In crisis settings, speed matters. Damage assessments and beneficiary identification can be slowed by insecurity, disrupted communications, inaccessible locations and incomplete information. Technology that processes available data more quickly could help agencies prioritise where infrastructure repairs, services and livelihood support are most urgently required.

However, faster analysis is not automatically better analysis. AI-assisted assessments are only as reliable as the information they receive. People living in remote areas, informal settlements or displacement sites may be poorly represented in official records. Communities without reliable digital connectivity may be less visible in datasets than locations where information is easier to collect.

The programme will therefore need to ensure that technological assessments complement rather than replace local knowledge. Community organisations, local authorities and affected residents may identify needs that automated tools overlook.

Questions also remain about how RAPIDA will validate its findings, manage sensitive information and correct inaccurate or incomplete assessments. In humanitarian settings, errors in targeting can have serious consequences, particularly when resources are limited and eligibility decisions affect access to jobs, shelter or essential services.

The technology's value will ultimately depend not on its sophistication, but on whether it helps assistance reach people who might otherwise be missed.

The Real Measure Comes After the Repairs

The six locations covered by R.E.V.I.V.E. share the experience of crisis, but they do not present a single recovery challenge. Afghanistan, Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, South Sudan and Syria differ sharply in their political conditions, conflict dynamics, institutional capacity, displacement patterns and access constraints.

A standard programme model will require substantial local adaptation. The type of infrastructure required, the feasibility of employment schemes and the capacity of local institutions will vary from one setting to another, and often between communities within the same country.

There is also a tension between flexibility and focus. The ability to expand into emerging crises may allow the programme to respond rapidly, but adding new locations could place pressure on a fixed pool of funding. How the $50 million is allocated among countries, sectors and beneficiaries will be central to assessing the programme's reach.

Maintenance is another unresolved challenge. Rehabilitated infrastructure may deteriorate if local institutions lack financing, staff or materials. Emergency jobs may provide critical income without creating lasting employment. Services restored during the programme could again be interrupted by violence, displacement or economic deterioration.

The most meaningful indicators will therefore emerge after the construction teams leave and temporary employment ends. Editors and policymakers should watch whether rehabilitated assets remain operational, whether livelihoods continue without programme support and whether local institutions gain the authority and resources to lead future recovery.

R.E.V.I.V.E. Phase II reflects a broader shift in crisis response: an attempt to stop treating humanitarian relief and development as entirely separate stages. Its success will not be measured only by how much debris is removed or how many people are reached, but by whether communities are left with stronger services, functioning local economies and greater control over their recovery.