And then – patatras!
Humanitarian aid faced with the challenge of surpassing itself.
The humanitarian reform led by OCHA for the United Nations — the now famous “humanitarian reset” at the start of 2025 — is the immediate consequence of the massive drop in funding from the top 10 donors, who represent 84% of total funds, with 42% coming from the United States alone. This collapse is both abrupt and massive. Will it be long-lasting?
The key question is what the immediate consequences will be for populations in danger and what the repercussions will be for the humanitarian organizations working to help them.
The situation is alarming when, according to reliable UN sources, this reduction could range from minus 34% to minus 45% in 2025 compared to 2023! In 2023, total humanitarian needs were assessed at USD 56.7 billion, of which only USD 24.4 billion was ultimately raised from donors.
Therefore, if these estimates are confirmed, the international humanitarian aid budget could fall to between USD 13 and 16 billion, excluding private funding! This is still just a hypothesis, as we’re only halfway through the year and U.S. funding is currently impossible to forecast.
If this scenario were to come true, based on 2023 figures, it would mean we could only help between 70 and 85 million people in danger, out of 305.1 million people identified as needing assistance this year by OCHA, which in the end only retained 189.5 million people in 72 countries in need of USD 47.4 billion.
Given how critical funding is for “saving lives,” I choose to risk presenting this scenario — with its very serious consequences — hoping reality will prove me wrong, rather than ignore what now seems possible! Above all, I hope this alert will raise awareness and trigger mobilization to halt this collapse of humanitarian relief.
So, what can we do?
In all its diversity, how will the humanitarian system adapt, how will it react, and what are its options? While it’s difficult to predict with precision right now, at the very least we must ask these questions, given how fast destabilization is spreading and how urgent the situation has become.
What will happen to the 100 to 200 million human beings currently in need of humanitarian aid who may end up receiving nothing? Will we, like wartime surgeons, have to triage and choose who we help and who we leave behind?
Faced with this daunting question, humanitarians have few choices. The first is to do everything they can on their own; the second is to act together to stop the decline in funding and, as far as possible, to seek to offset it. The decision-makers who control international aid funding must pull themselves together and “not throw the baby out with the bathwater!”
I see many initiatives moving in this direction. I was invited by Thierry Mauricet, Xavier Boutin, and Matthieu de Bénazé to speak at the General Assembly of the Coordination Humanitaire et Développement (CHD), which brings together 57 field-based humanitarian and development NGOs in France and is a member of Coordination Sud. There, I met committed, competent leaders involved in working groups to improve their practices. The CHD is preparing an institutional campaign to urge decision-makers to prioritize support for its members’ concrete work serving populations.
Eric Cheysson and Anouchka Finker from La Chaîne de l’Espoir invited me to speak at their General Assembly. Listening to surgeons returning from the frontlines in Ukraine, you’re immediately reminded of what truly matters: “saving lives” — that is the mission. And this association, like others, has a large and loyal network of donors and partners, which gives it real room to maneuver.
Likewise, at the General Assembly of Solidarités International, which included members both in Clichy and live from Sudan, New York, and elsewhere, the analysis of the “humanitarian reset” was already well understood. Adaptation is underway, and planning for the future has begun, with the primary goal of continuing the mission where needs are most urgent, as its president Antoine Peigney emphasized.
These are just a few examples that highlight the commitment, energy, boldness, and expertise essential to the work of these non-profit associations.
While the entire humanitarian sector will be heavily impacted, its actors, in all their diversity, are not all in the same situation; each must work for itself first, and then for the broader humanitarian community.
I won’t revisit in detail here the approaches already discussed in previous articles on Défis Humanitaires: alternative funding, innovation, pooling of resources, better coordination in action and advocacy, and communication adapted to the new context.
And we do have allies: a recent study for the French Development Agency (AFD) by Tobuna and Harris Interactive shows that 7 out of 10 French people believe that what happens elsewhere in the world will affect their personal lives, and for an overwhelming majority, France should protect international law, the economy, have a strong army, and show solidarity. Surely the same is true elsewhere.
A word on resource sharing. Let’s not forget those so-called support NGOs that play an active role in the humanitarian ecosystem, such as HULO, Bioport, Atlas Logistique, Résonnance Humanitaire, Bioforce, CartONG, INSO, Aviation Sans Frontières, and others I may have missed. We regularly give them a voice in our publication because they play a role that deserves recognition.
When geopolitics meets humanitarian aid.
To a large extent, humanitarian action is shaped by geopolitics and its sudden turns. When you see the president of the United States, Donald Trump, who within just a few weeks decides to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, dominates the annual NATO summit in the Netherlands, reconciles the DRC and Rwanda in an improbable agreement — just as he previously did between India and Pakistan — you can only conclude the world is shifting much faster than before.
The other day, at a ceremony, I met a French ambassador who has held senior roles at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I asked him bluntly how he sees the future. He replied, without any rhetorical detour, that the United States and China are each preparing for war against the other; that Trump is trying to separate Russia from China in this perspective; and that France and Europe are now at a moment of truth before history! We shall see. If the worst is not certain, it is at least possible.
It’s not only international humanitarian law that is under threat; it’s international law itself that is being undermined. Law is giving way to force and power to settle disputes. So, if we have the law on our side, we might as well be strong! Public opinion understands this very well!
Are Russia’s daily, massive bombings of Ukraine in preparation for a major offensive this summer?
When we watch helplessly the tragic farce of the Humanitarian Foundation for Gaza, whose activities have already caused 500 civilian Palestinian deaths among a population that has already suffered so much, we must realize that some now wish to bypass legitimate, experienced humanitarian actors — and that it may even work someday.
A more personal word to conclude. I’m naturally positive and believe in the optimism of action, which the humanitarian sector, especially at its origins, embodied to exist at all. That doesn’t stop us from identifying the risks we face in order to better overcome them. That too is the optimism of action.
We don’t have a magic wand to transform humanitarian action overnight, but I firmly believe it must become more frugal, lean, swift, bold, intelligent, and in symbiosis with populations in danger and national actors. If this crisis is a threat, let’s turn it into an opportunity.
Finally, thank you for allowing us to continue and expand the publication of Défis Humanitaires through your support (donate). Thank you.
Alain Boinet
I invite you to read these interviews and articles published in the edition :