For humanitarian action, the butterfly effect combined with a scissor effect could lead to a chain reaction, a cascading domino effect with dangerous humanitarian, security and geopolitical consequences.
In editorials published in the spring of 2024 in Défis Humanitaires, I first raised the risk of a butterfly effect from the war in Ukraine, which would pave the way for further aggression, as we saw with Azerbaijan’s attack on the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, and as could happen one day with China invading Taiwan, or even in Europe beyond Ukraine.
Any aggression leads to successive reactions, which in turn can lead to ever-widening conflict, as was the case in the aftermath of the First World War. At first, we didn’t know it was a world war!
In another editorial, I also mentioned the economic scissor effect, when resources and costs evolve in opposite directions. This is exactly what we’re seeing now in humanitarian action, where needs are constantly increasing, while the means to meet them have begun and continue to fall! And so I raised this question: is this a passing phenomenon or a lasting trend, and how far could it go ?
The question today is whether the butterfly effect of tensions and conflicts of all kinds that are flourishing before our very eyes, including within a country like the United States, could add to the scissor effect of a decline in the global humanitarian response, causing a domino effect of a chain reaction here and there, leading to a succession of humanitarian, security and geopolitical crises.
The equation is as follows. Will the increase in crises and the number of populations affected, while the humanitarian response weakens, not lead to imbalances that provoke population movements, despair, radicalization, and a structural deterioration in public services and states, whose weakening could then provoke a domino effect from one to the next, as if by contagion?
My point here is not to say that the drop in humanitarian aid could provoke wars, but rather that the increase in conflictual situations, disasters (particularly climate-related), major epidemics and the depletion of natural resources in a world with a much larger population and growing consumption, the weakening of the UN and of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) could provoke major humanitarian crises which, if the inadequacy of relief supplies were to drive victims to despair and accelerate political crises, could lead to geopolitical crises according to the principle of the domino effect.
Isn’t this the domino effect spreading to the Sahel with Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, with the risk of spreading to the whole region? Is this not the logic that thrives around the terrible conflict in Gaza, which is spreading to Lebanon, Yemen and Iran? Is this not the dynamic that is being expressed from Ukraine to Moldavia, Georgia and Armenia in the South Caucasus?
Is it not this logic that is expressed when Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk declares “A new era has begun: that of the pre-war era”. I personally heard a Polish ambassador tell us at a friendly dinner that if Ukraine was in danger of losing and Poland felt threatened, then his country would go to war with Russia. In fact, Poland is preparing itself by devoting 4% of its GNI to defense, twice as much as countries like France, Germany and Great Britain!
As we all know, any war leads to destruction and population displacement, requiring humanitarian aid until a political solution to the conflict can be found. This is the famous stabilization triptych: humanitarian aid – return to security – political solution.
If, in the face of the chaos of war, humanitarian aid becomes dangerously scarce, doesn’t this risk exacerbating any conflict and making any political solution more difficult and remote when the populations are the main issue?
So, what do the figures on international aid tell us? Humanitarian aid, which up until now has been increasing to meet the growing humanitarian needs of the population, is not only stagnating but even declining.
According to UNOCHA, international humanitarian aid in 2022 amounted to $30.48 billion, against an estimated need of $51.64 billion, an increase of 27% on the previous year. And yet, although the UN appeal was 59% covered, there was still a shortfall of 21.16 billion dollars in 2022.
But in 2023, to help 311 million vulnerable people, the amount has fallen back, with a budget of $25.13 billion for an estimated need of $56.09, 45% of which was funded, leaving a considerable shortfall of $31 billion.
So, where do we stand this year? UNOCHA’s appeal is for 49.55 billion dollars to help 180 million people in danger. It should be noted that a new methodology is now used for needs analysis (JIAF 2.0), which has considerably reduced the number of aid recipients from 300 million to 180 million! What will become of the 120 million people who will receive no aid in 2024, and what could be the domino effect?
According to UNOCHA FTS, as of November 3, 2024, funds received amount to $18.56 billion out of a budget of $49.95 billion required, i.e. 37.5% of the total with two months to go! This is not only leading to a reduction in humanitarian aid, but also to staff cuts at NGOs such as International Rescue Committee and Save The Children. This is a wake-up call.
It should be noted that, as of November 3, the funds raised in 2024 come from 3 main donors (United States, European Union, Germany), accounting for almost half of the budget, and that the United States represents 36.3% of the overall total. According to his figures, France’s contribution at that date was $548.9 million.
To be frank, as I wrote last month in this magazine to the Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noël Barrot, we can be very concerned about France’s 2025 Finance Bill which, after an initial cut of 740 million euros in Official Development Assistance in 2024, envisages a cut of 1.3 billion euros in 2025, which will have multiple consequences including a drop in humanitarian aid if parliament and public opinion don’t act strongly to avoid or, at the very least, limit it, whereas France has pledged to devote 1 billion euros to humanitarian aid in 2025.
In the current context, where the number of people at risk is steadily increasing every year, due to war, disasters and epidemics, it would be dangerous for humanitarian aid to decrease, both for the populations at risk themselves and for neighboring countries, which could find themselves dragged down by a domino effect that is increasingly difficult for the international community to stem.
We urgently need to take action.
Alain Boinet.
Thank you for your support (faireundon).
Humanitarian letter to Jean-Noël Barrot, French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs.
Alain Boinet is President of the association Défis Humanitaires, which publishes the online magazine www.defishumanitaires.com. He is the founder of the humanitarian association Solidarités International, of which he was Managing Director for 35 years. He is also a member of the Groupe de Concertation Humanitaire at the Centre de Crise et de Soutien of the French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, and of the Board of Directors of Solidarités International, the Partenariat Français pour l’Eau (PFE), the Véolia Foundation and the Think Tank (re)sources. He continues to travel to the field (Northeast Syria, Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh and Armenia) and to speak out in the media.
I invite you to read these interviews and articles published in the edition :
- The challenges of a revolution in progress: digital data management for humanitarian and development aid. Interview with Martin Noblecourt, from CartONG
- Lebanon, Gaza, Iran, and now what ? A personal interview with Antoine Basbous, director of the Observatoire du Monde Arabe.
- On the humanitarian front line in Ukraine. Interview with Mathieu Nabot, Country Director of Solidarités International
- Summary: “Falling short ? Humanitarian funding and reform”
- Solidarity with Armenian students.