The European Union, ECHO and Humanitarian Action

Interview with Pauline Chetcutti, President of VOICE.

Alain Boinet: At the end of July, the consolidated appeal stood at 45.84 billion dollars. At that date, only 7.64 billion dollars had been raised, which is about 40% less than at the same time last year! As a result, the United Nations announced a drastic reduction of their plan, leading to hyper-prioritization targeting only 114 million people at risk out of the 310 million identified, with a budget of 29 billion dollars and no guarantee of achieving it. What do you think?

Pauline Chetcuti:

The situation is concerning: 40% less than last year and only 17% of the requested amount actually raised. The consequences will be dramatic for communities in need of assistance.

This hyper-prioritization will have very heavy effects. On the one hand, tens of millions of people will be left without lifesaving aid, with the risk of tipping into increased precarity. On the other hand, it risks creating new emergencies that could have been avoided if these populations had been taken into account.

It also raises a moral and ethical question: how can we “sort” lives this way?

For years, work has been done on the triple nexus, on resilience and prevention—everything that goes beyond pure emergency response. Yet with this hyper-prioritization we risk a return to a solely emergency-driven logic, which is more costly and generates imbalances between populations.This movement thus contributes to discrediting the humanitarian sector by leaving populations aside, in a context where the trust of both beneficiaries and donors is already deeply weakened.

Alain Boinet: In a context of funding crisis and weakened leadership of the United Nations, how should we approach the UN 80 structural reform project launched by the Secretary-General on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the UN and, within this framework, the specific Humanitarian Reset which concerns, in one way or another, all humanitarian actors?

Pauline Chetchuti:

Obviously, budget cuts make reform necessary, even if this is not new since the UN has been reforming in cycles for several years. Today, we are in a context of crisis where budgets are cut, and the reorganization proposed by UN 80 as well as the Humanitarian Reset are being undertaken in direct response to this situation.

The UN 80 project is a reorganization of UN entities with better coordination between the peace–development–human rights pillars, as well as a simplification of mandates, with potentially large UN agencies grouped together.

This reform therefore responds to a double urgency: the decline in funding and the loss of credibility of multilateralism.

The Humanitarian Reset is part of this logic, aiming for simplification, efficiency and “cost-effectiveness” of the sector. It seeks to refocus funding as close as possible to countries, notably via OCHA’s country-based pooled funds, and it also emphasizes localization. In principle, localization is not ruled out, but the way it will be implemented raises questions. At VOICE, we are working precisely on these points, notably on the importance of maintaining a diversity of instruments and actors to respond to complex and diverse contexts.

However, we must avoid reducing everything to technical aspects. The success of these reforms will also depend on the political will of donors and the commitment of States. It is up to us—NGOs and networks—to document the concrete consequences of the Reset for organizations and to remind everyone of our fundamental and complementary role in the humanitarian ecosystem. NGOs bring essential diversity, being closest to contexts and with a nuanced understanding of population needs. It is therefore crucial to ensure that all humanitarian actors are taken into account in the Reset led by Tom Fletcher.

Finally, the achievements of the reforms undertaken since the World Humanitarian Summit and the Grand Bargain must be preserved and, above all, prioritized: flexible funding, localization, risk sharing and lighter reporting requirements. We cannot afford to go backwards.

Alain Boinet: Governments representing various political leanings—within the European Union and OECD members in particular, not to mention the United States—are significantly reducing their humanitarian and development aid. How can we understand these decisions, what are the possible consequences, and what can and should humanitarian actors do?

Pauline Chetcuti:

The humanitarian crisis is severe at present, accentuated by U.S. cuts with the end of USAID, but it is also a long-term trend over recent years. The reasons are multiple, though some common threads emerge: national retrenchment, refocusing on domestic priorities, fiscal austerity, inflation, public debt. At the same time, we see rising military expenditures and declining spending on international cooperation.

There is also donor fatigue and distrust toward aid after Covid, Ukraine, etc. Moreover, it is becoming very difficult for States to continue defending and justifying these investments. Indeed, it is complicated for them to maintain their commitment when they cannot show immediate and tangible results, in a logic of prioritizing responses to the internal needs of their own populations.

Furthermore, we have weakened leadership at the United Nations, despite a huge increase in the services it provides. There is truly a loss of momentum and legitimacy of multilateral institutions, which is obviously driven by certain great powers (China, the United States, etc.) that are changing the context we operate in. And this is what is driving today’s budget cuts.

The direct consequences will be particularly heavy for communities already weakened by conflicts, climate shocks or economic inequalities. These populations will be doubly affected by the decline in funding, the reduction in international cooperation and the scaling back of support. It is a vicious circle: the less we fund the aid system and the multilateral system, the less visible the impact of this system is for the most vulnerable. Consequently, there is disengagement from institutions that weakens their effectiveness and legitimacy, which then, in turn, is used to justify reduced engagement and investment in these very institutions.

For us as NGOs, as members of civil society and as a network representing a large number of organizations, we must resist and reaffirm the impact of international cooperation and, more specifically, of humanitarian aid. We must demonstrate its concrete impact for the most vulnerable populations, build a strong narrative toward institutions, donors, but also the general public.

European polls still show significant public support for humanitarian aid, though not always reflected in the policies of Member States. That is why it is essential to maintain a strong voice, to continue demonstrating the positive impact of humanitarian aid and to highlight partnerships with local NGOs. That is to say, it is not simply the European Union acting vis-à-vis States in the rest of the world, but above all an approach aimed at creating strong civil societies capable of developing their own capacities within the contexts in which they operate.

So this is a virtuous circle to which we contribute, in which communities develop positively and emerge from cycles of vulnerability. For us, the challenge is to continue to engage to counter today’s weariness and disengagement.

Alain Boinet: In a recent VOICE Out Loud publication (September 2025), you published a long interview with Commissioner Hadja Lahbib on the various communication challenges for the European Union’s humanitarian aid. What should we take away from it, in your view?

Pauline Chetcuti:

First, we are very grateful to Commissioner Hadja Lahbib for lending her voice and contributing to this interview. I recommend reading it; it is really very interesting.

A key message emerges from this exchange: speak with principles and values. She places at the center dignity and the need to be in integrity with the agency of each population. She also puts communication at the heart—listening to what populations want before “speaking over” them. It is not about “advertising,” but about making the voices of our partners in different countries heard, with integrity.

She encourages communicating with values, with a real desire to convey a message of solidarity and community. The idea is that we can show impact while going beyond images that are sometimes undignified (such as those of children in conflict), often used in the past. We can communicate with dignity to foster solidarity, not just visibility.

Alain Boinet: In a previous interview with you published in Défis Humanitaires in February 2025, we notably discussed the DG ECHO budget for 2025. Three months from the end of the year, do we now know its amount and how do you at VOICE analyze it?

Pauline Chetcuti:

The budget question is fundamental, and all our members within VOICE are asking it.

For 2025, the amount stands at around 2.46 billion euros for the strictly humanitarian line. The figure will be consolidated by the end of the year, with possible budget top-ups. We already know that the emergency aid reserve was fully mobilized this year to respond to several major crises, and it is unlikely to be renewed before year-end. This reserve provided for 583 million euros for 2025.

We do not think there will be any major change in how the European Union will fund humanitarian crises.

As for the draft 2026 budget, the Commission is proposing a little over 1.8 billion euros for humanitarian aid; subsequently, the Council proposed an increase of 18 million to this amount. It is a step up, but it remains limited in view of the growing scale of humanitarian needs and inflation. Moreover, this does not at this stage include the emergency and solidarity reserve, which will be discussed over the course of the year.

Alain Boinet: Discussions for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2028–2035) have begun at the European Commission, which should present a proposal during 2025. Moreover, President Ursula von der Leyen and Commissioner Piotr Serafin announced a budget of 200 billion euros for “Global Europe in the world,” the new external action instrument with an indicative amount of 25 billion euros for humanitarian aid. While the increase is very significant and positive, humanitarian actors are nevertheless concerned about the vagueness and risks related to the framework and objectives. What does VOICE and its President think?

Pauline Chetcuti: :

This is a core issue for VOICE: how to use this new multiannual financial framework (MFF) and understand what this Global Europe entails.

At VOICE, we welcome the indicative amount of 25 billion euros earmarked for humanitarian aid under this new Global Europe instrument. It is a strong political signal in a particularly difficult context, marked both by rising humanitarian needs and by a growing lack of donor interest in supporting aid.

But this must be put into perspective. First, we do not yet know how this instrument will be used. If we add up the annual budget and the reinforcements of recent years (including the emergency aid reserve), we already reached a little over 17 billion euros. The increase is therefore real, but not spectacular, especially when we consider that humanitarian needs will continue to grow—particularly if the UN continues its hyper-prioritization.

Next, these figures are for now only proposals since the Member States must still decide.

Finally, another concern for VOICE relates to the political framing of this new instrument. Global Europe emphasizes the competitiveness, sovereignty and economic power of the European Union rather than the needs of affected populations. We therefore face a more political instrument, embedded in a logic of strengthening the interests of the European Union.

Nevertheless, humanitarian aid appears to be preserved, and that is positive. But will it remain independent of the EU’s political priorities? That is not guaranteed. This is precisely what we want to determine. We will advocate for aid to remain needs-based and grounded in humanitarian principles, rather than in the interests of Member States.

Within VOICE, we will continue to raise these questions and to engage directly with DG ECHO and the European Commission on the MFF issues. We also invite all VOICE members to contribute, to share their concerns and, above all, to mobilize Member States to support the maintenance of independent humanitarian aid within this new instrument. We call on each State to take a position on the new MFF to guarantee the safety and sustainability of the humanitarian envelope.

Alain Boinet: Some Member States wish to become more involved and are considering creating a specific forum of States dedicated to humanitarian aid, with the objective of ring-fencing humanitarian funding and thus avoiding any fungibility of humanitarian funds within the overall 200 billion euros. Is this an interesting avenue?

Pauline Chetcuti:

All avenues are worth exploring if they strengthen the effectiveness and credibility of spending.

However, it is essential to ensure today that humanitarian funding is neither diluted nor controlled by the national interests of Member States or of the European Union— in other words, by geopolitical considerations.

Humanitarian aid must also remain flexible in order to react to an extremely volatile context, marked by severe and sudden deteriorations in certain countries. This flexibility must allow us to respond to immediate needs, but also to neglected or forgotten crises often absent from the media spotlight.

Whatever new instrument is built, it must respond as closely as possible to the needs of populations, while remaining accessible to NGOs, and in particular to local partners.

In short, if we open or create a new instrument, we absolutely must integrate these conditions from the outset and ensure that they are fully included in the avenue under discussion.

Alain Boinet: For the good information of our readers, particularly outside Europe, can you present VOICE in broad strokes?

Pauline Chetcuti:

VOICE is a European network of humanitarian NGOs. We bring together more than 90 member organizations based in the EU, as well as in the United Kingdom and Switzerland, which implement or support humanitarian aid.

Our role is twofold. On the one hand, we are a space for coordination and exchange among European humanitarian NGOs. This fosters the adoption of common positions, and the sharing of expertise and knowledge, and creates synergies.

On the other hand, we carry collective advocacy with European institutions (DG ECHO, the European Parliament, Member States). Through our European members and their NGO networks. For example, we work closely with national networks such as Coordination SUD in France to build common positions.

In short, VOICE is a bridge between the European humanitarian civil society and public decision-makers in a region that remains one of the world’s main humanitarian donors.

Alain Boinet: How would you like to conclude this interview? A message, a call?

Pauline Chetcuti:

It is a difficult question. How can we conclude on a positive note in the face of the challenges we have discussed?

Obviously, we are facing a very severe existential crisis in the humanitarian system. We suffer from a credibility deficit, to which we must know how to respond. The response must be collective. NGOs must come together to create a strong voice, a common narrative that reaffirms the value of international cooperation and global solidarity. This is a real challenge we are setting ourselves within NGOs and that we are determined to meet.

The other point is that funding issues, although essential and at the heart of current debates, are not everything. We also need to remember why we do all this and why it is so important to ask these questions. Because this funding primarily makes it possible to maintain aid to the most vulnerable.

Obviously, we think of forgotten conflicts, such as in the Democratic Republic of Congo or Sudan, where the contexts are absolutely dire. We also think of our colleagues and populations in Gaza and Palestine. If we are questioning ourselves today, it is to preserve this international solidarity, to act as close as possible to populations, to help them not only to survive, but above all to live with dignity and exercise their fundamental rights.

Finally, for me, it is a call to collectivity, a surge of solidarity among our various NGOs. We have real collective potential if all organizations come together, notably through networks like VOICE. We can project a stronger voice and put forward essential ideas and values.

I will conclude by saying that money is not everything. What matters is what we do with it. How we transform this funding into concrete changes, into improved lives in the most complex contexts, so that everyone can get by, survive and live a better life.

 

Pauline Chetcuti:

Pauline Chetcuti has been—since June 2024—the President of VOICE. Pauline Chetcuti is also Head of Humanitarian Campaigns and Advocacy for Oxfam International. A lawyer specialized in international humanitarian law and human rights, she has solid experience within UN agencies and NGOs in contexts such as Palestine, Afghanistan, the DRC and Myanmar. She provides strategic leadership on global campaigns and policies related to the protection of civilians, fragility and the impact of climate change on vulnerable populations. Author of several publications on humanitarian principles, hunger and the link between climate and humanitarian action, she contributes actively to the international debate. An expert in network management, she strengthens humanitarian partnerships and represents Oxfam in high-level forums. Guided by feminist leadership, she values diversity, inclusion and the expression of the voices of her team and partners.