If you’re reading this, chances are you’ve had a national colleague who made half of your salary or an international peer who made three times yours.

Such was the case with Omar*, a former colleague from my years in Amman. Omar, who is half a decade my senior and held an advanced degree (versus my Bachelor of Arts), worked on an adjacent team in the same international NGO.

Omar made only around half of my remuneration package. He had the superior qualifications; I had the superior passport. Thus, I was hired as an “expat” on a contract that included a higher base salary, generous housing provisions, a daily allowance and ample paid leave.

It’s no secret that national humanitarian staff face greater risk for lower pay: These inequities have been coded into the aid system. UN agencies and INGOs should seize today’s drive for systemic change to shed colonial-era staffing policies: Include salary standardisation in UN80 and other reform efforts.

Most humanitarian organisations have separate staffing policies for locally hired versus internationally recruited staff. Research published in 2010, for example, found expatriate aid workers were paid four times what their local counterparts earned.

More recently, a Refugees International analysis found that international staff costs in Ukraine were five times those of national staff – and 17 times more than staff at local NGOs.

The very institutions that should be setting the bar for fair pay have mimicked existing standards, regardless of their liveability or fairness within the local context.

The policies entrenching these inequities have been in place since the colonial era. The UN system, with the exception of the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund, uses a common system for salaries, allowances and benefits across agencies.

International staff salaries within the UN system are determined by the 1920 “Noblemaire Principle”, based on the highest civil service salary scale amongst member states. Meanwhile, national staff remuneration is governed by the 1948 “Flemming Principle”, dictating their conditions should meet the highest local standards for similar work.

Thus, the very institutions that should be setting the bar for fair pay have mimicked existing standards, regardless of their liveability or fairness within the local context.

National staff working in the sector are systemically undervalued, as is reflected in their lower salaries. Yet they take on the biggest risks: At least 330 of our humanitarian colleagues were killed in 2025. The vast majority were national staff.

This disparity ultimately pushed Omar to move abroad, thus becoming an expat himself – an option that is not available to many. For other national friends and colleagues, limited potential for advancement in national staff structures pushed them to exit the sector, or prevented them from entering at all. Thus, the very systems adopted to ensure that the sector attracts talent disincentivises the best and brightest from pursuing humanitarian careers.

Worse, it exacerbates brain drain, as talented humanitarians like Omar leave their countries to be promoted elsewhere.

I have heard colleagues defend pay inequities by highlighting differences in language and education. However, while I have seen English fluency cited as a reason a bilingual Jordanian candidate is not suited for a reporting role, I have never heard the same argument against a German or French citizen. Further, the classification of “local” universities (those in the Global South) as poorer quality is cited as a factor in distinguishing international staff. However, by this logic, a Jordanian student who studies at the London School of Economics or at Rutgers should see their earning potential elevated to the international staff scale.

But even the most elite education does not allow them to transcend the restrictions posed by their nationality. For instance, a Jordanian with a Stanford degree has the same options as one graduating from Hashemite University.

It is true that there are added challenges, financial and otherwise, to moving to a new country. However, while this may justify additional relocation allowances, it does not necessitate a difference in base salaries.

A year after the UN launched its UN80 system-wide reforms, it has a unique opportunity to update policies that remain from the colonial period.

Several agencies are reducing staff numbers and moving their headquarters’ functions to Global South hubs. The UN may use the impetus provided by these changes to model overdue changes in salary structures. It can do so by creating unified policies by duty station rather than passport so that newly relocated staff start off on an equal footing, with a singular salary scale allowing organisations to advertise to all candidates.

INGOs, which benefit from greater agility and less bureaucracy than the UN, should use the dramatic changes in global staffing as a catalyst to standardise practices.

There are already models for policies and guidance. Project Fair at the University of Edinburgh has created principles for organisations seeking to adopt equitable salary structures that base employment schemes on merit, not passports. While its members include some prominent INGOs like the Danish Refugee Council and Interpeace, other major international organisations are notably absent.

Through current reforms, the UN and INGOs should choose to lead by example, introducing updated standardised staffing structures without differentiation by nationality.

• A Tell Media report / Source: The New Humanitarian