Interview with Manuel Patrouillard, Executive Director of the Handicap International Federation

© S. Rae / HI – Vanno Leap, an orthotist with HI, is making Sreyka’s new prosthesis. Sreyka Pov, 14, receives a new prosthesis in Kampong Cham. For the past six years, Sreyka has been visiting the Kampong Cham Community Rehabilitation Center regularly. Since she is growing quickly, the HI teams regularly make her a new prosthesis.

Alain Boinet. Hello, Manuel Patrouillard, and thank you for this interview about the work of Handicap International – Humanity and Inclusion. On April 4, you launched a campaign titled “The Nobel Peace: Repairing Peace, Together.” Why launch this campaign now, and what do you hope to achieve with it?

Manuel Patrouillard. Hello, and thank you for having me. We have high hopes for this campaign, because the Ottawa Treaty is currently under attack from all sides. It is being challenged by states that, historically, have never acceded to it, but also—and this is more concerning—by states that have ratified it.

The goal of this campaign is clear: to hold States Parties accountable for their obligations and to denounce violations of the treaty. This treaty remains a fundamental pillar in the fight against profoundly devastating methods of warfare that today affect 85% of civilians. Antipersonnel mines are cowardly weapons, and it is our responsibility to prevent their return to conflict zones.

Some of the countries considering withdrawing from the treaty—Poland, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia—are democracies bordering Russia that are preparing for a threat they deem real in light of the situation in Ukraine. Other states on Europe’s eastern flank could follow suit if this threat were to intensify. However, antipersonnel mines cannot be part of the response to this threat.

Alain Boinet. In this context, how can you develop your campaign and make your case to the public in these countries?

Manuel Patrouillard. The first question is obviously a military one: what is the real purpose of these weapons? The facts have long been established: their military effectiveness is extremely limited. A minefield does not stop an army’s advance; it can be bypassed, and when it does slow it down, it is only for a very short time.

These weapons are more a matter of military redundancy, which is catastrophic from a humanitarian standpoint: 85% of the victims are civilians, and 40% are children.

The issue is therefore also a moral one. What is the point of a weapon that kills or maims large numbers of civilians and very few combatants? There are other ways to defend a territory without resorting to devices that have dramatic long-term human and economic consequences.

Democracies can sometimes succumb to oversimplification and facile rhetoric. Challenging the international consensus on the ban on antipersonnel mines is no trivial matter: it carries extremely strong symbolic weight, including regarding the quality and democratic robustness of the states involved.

Protecting civilians does not mean laying mines that will remain active for decades, or even centuries, that will explode in children’s hands and permanently hinder economic development. What is presented as a short-term solution actually creates a major long-term humanitarian problem. It is in this sense that we refer to them as “weapons of cowards.”

© K. Nateel / HI -Ahmed (not his real name), a 13-year-old boy, lives with his family in a camp for displaced people in the southern Gaza Strip. In January 2024, while playing near his home in Rafah, he noticed a strange object on the ground. When he approached it, the object exploded. Several fingers on his left hand were amputated. Here he is undergoing rehabilitation with an HI physical therapist for his hand.

Alain Boinet. Following the Trump administration’s decisions in January 2025 to abolish USAID and drastically cut its funding, and after the concurrent decline in Official Development Assistance from 26 out of 34 member countries of the OECD Development Assistance Committee, what are the consequences for Handicap International – Humanity and Inclusion, its organization, and its programs?

Manuel Patrouillard. The consequences are massive. The U.S. budget cuts have not only affected direct funding from the United States, but also a portion of the United Nations funds that depended on it.

These reductions are part of a broader trend of declining public funding, which began in 2024. For Handicap International, this represents a loss of approximately half of its public funding, or nearly 40% of its total resources.

This situation has already forced us to reduce our workforce by about 20%, and this trend of downsizing continues. It is still difficult to gauge the final extent of this, even though we remain hopeful for new developments with certain donors. In concrete terms, this crisis is resulting in the closure of programs and countries of operation—a trend that has already begun and could intensify if the decline in funding is confirmed.

Alain Boinet. Faced with this situation—which is at once new, sudden, and rapid—how are you effectively managing this decline? What alternative model are you moving toward, and how are you adapting your communication to this new context?

Manuel Patrouillard. As early as 2024 and early 2025, we had been working on a five-year strategy for the period 2026–2030. It already anticipated a contraction in funding, but not the scale of the current crisis. That said, several directions we set at the time are proving relevant today and must be accelerated.

The first concerns regionalization. We have chosen to consolidate our operations into five major regions worldwide in order to pool expertise and support functions. The goal is not to create additional layers of bureaucracy, but rather to streamline operations by having a single finance, HR, and operations department per region. This structure makes the decline in funding more sustainable and allows us to maintain our impact on the ground.

The second focus is on strengthening our core mission. Handicap International is recognized for three major areas: the inclusion of people with disabilities, physical and functional rehabilitation, and humanitarian demining. Even though inclusion is now challenged by certain ideologies, it remains central to the expectations of the majority of donors. We will therefore continue to champion it fully, just as we do rehabilitation—particularly in emergency contexts—and demining, which remains tragically relevant today.

© T. Nicholson / HI – HI demining trainers conduct an awareness-raising session on the risks of unexploded ordnance (EORE) for local communities in areas where they are carrying out demining and unexploded ordnance disposal operations in Al Meriaaya, in the province of Deir ez-Zor, Syria.

Finally, we are developing the HI Movement, a network of organizations committed to inclusion on a global scale. This movement will facilitate the sharing of expertise, tools, and training, as well as the formation of consortia. Conceived before the crisis, it is now taking on full meaning and will be accelerated. These three pillars illustrate the rapid evolution of our model, in step with current challenges.

Alain Boinet. In a March 2025 interview with Chroniques Philanthropiques, you wondered whether the humanitarian sector was at the end of a cycle or whether it was, rather, the end of a model. A year later, what is your view on this, looking beyond HI and considering the entire humanitarian ecosystem?

Manuel Patrouillard. I firmly believe we are at the end of a model. Humanitarian needs have never been greater, and the diversity of actors remains essential. But we must acknowledge an inescapable reality: funding is at an all-time low, creating an unsustainable squeeze when combined with the explosion in needs.

The erosion of international humanitarian law further exacerbates this situation. The protection once afforded to humanitarian workers is eroding dramatically; in Gaza, we have lost several colleagues and their families. We have become targets.

Added to this are access difficulties, administrative roadblocks, and restrictions that have grown increasingly complex over the past twenty-five years. We must therefore thoroughly rethink our methods of intervention, our operational models, and our approach to humanitarian access. The transformations I have mentioned for HI are fully in line with this broader reflection.

Alain Boinet. In this new geopolitical and humanitarian context, have you established red lines regarding the conditions under which NGOs like HI receive funding from institutional donors and the United States, among others?

Manuel Patrouillard. Handicap International has always established red lines to preserve our independence and impartiality. That is precisely why we created the HI Institute for Operational Ethics. For over ten years, it has guided us in analyzing each of our funding sources through a rigorous ethical framework: our ability to accept these funds, associated conditions, potential partnerships, and relationships with conflict stakeholders.

Everything we do at HI regarding funding, access, and partnerships goes through this ethical filter. With recent changes in U.S. funding and the strengthening of the Mexico City Policy, which places significant constraints on organizations like ours, we are no longer able to accept U.S. funding. In fact, we lost this funding when the new administration took office, and it is highly unlikely that we will be able to regain it in the short or medium term.

Alain Boinet. Some people point to the simultaneous questioning of humanitarian action—both through criticism labeled as populist and through so-called decolonial criticism. What are your thoughts on this? How can we reconcile universal, identity-based, and more localized values with humanitarian action and localization?

Manuel Patrouillard. I believe that when we are attacked by extremists on both sides, it is actually a good sign. It means we have found a middle ground—admittedly uncomfortable, but fair. Being on that middle ground exposes us more to crossfire, and unfortunately, that’s not just a figure of speech. Why are we being attacked? Probably because we are a thorn in the side of autocrats of all stripes.

Civil society operates openly: it starts with needs and engages in dialogue with governments, ministries, and communities. This is how we build effective international solidarity, by striking the right balance between what must be done locally and what must be brought in from outside—whether in the form of expertise, tools, or systems.

From the very beginning, Handicap International has sought to operate in this way, although, like any international organization, we have also learned along the way and adapted our practices. In the early days, on the border between Cambodia and Thailand, we produced prosthetics with and by people with disabilities themselves, using simple materials. Since then, we have strengthened our commitment to a more localized approach, particularly through a more structured dialogue with communities, and partnerships with local organizations and national authorities that are more balanced and designed for the long term.

International solidarity and collaboration within a universal humanity can never be called into question over the long term, not even by those who advocate isolationism. The world is globalized: if we do not collectively address global problems, they will ultimately impose themselves upon us. HI has demonstrated the relevance of its model. It will evolve, but it will remain grounded in partnership with governments and communities, always placing the beneficiary at the center, in a response that is humane and dignified.

Alain Boinet. Since you just mentioned it, I can attest to the extraordinary work done by Handicap International in 1982 along the border between Thailand and Cambodia, where many Khmer people were fleeing the Khmer Rouge regime and then the Vietnamese invasion and were stepping on landmines. And I remember going to Khao-I-Dang, Nong Chan, Nong Samet, and the Dângrêk Mountains, and seeing HI’s work in fitting those who had stepped on these mines with remarkable prosthetics, since these individuals could themselves tinker with their prostheses to best adapt them to their specific needs. This is an absolutely exceptional initiative that remains as vital today as ever.

Manuel Patrouillard. Thank you for putting it so much better than I could—and especially for having witnessed it firsthand. I arrived after that period, but this story deeply embodies the spirit of Handicap International. It is a spirit rooted in frugality, practical innovation, community engagement, and the ability to do a lot with little, without ever losing sight of what matters most.

Alain Boinet. To come back to that, I also remember young mothers who had lost a leg above or below the knee—which is quite different—and who were smiling and full of joie de vivre because they had regained the use of their legs thanks to these prosthetics. When you’re able-bodied, it’s hard to imagine the difference that can make in someone’s life.

Manuel Patrouillard. When we talk about “getting back on one’s feet,” that’s exactly what we mean: standing tall. It’s as much about mobility as it is about dignity. It’s about giving people with disabilities the opportunity to lead a normal life: to work, go to school, farm a field, and start a family. “Living upright” has long been our organization’s slogan, and it remains profoundly true.

Prosthetics are, of course, essential, but beyond that, it is a vision of human dignity. It is about giving these people back what landmines—those cowardly weapons—sought to steal from them: an independent, dignified, and fulfilling life.

© T. Nicholson / HI -HI’s demining experts are conducting demining and unexploded ordnance disposal operations in Deir ez-Zor, Syria. In the village of Mreieyah, in Deir ez-Zor, Syria.

Alain Boinet. In contrast to the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence that commonly guide the humanitarian work of diverse actors—as you mentioned earlier: the Red Cross family, UN agencies, and NGOs—some voices are calling for the politicization of humanitarian aid. How should we understand this, and how should we respond as a humanitarian organization?

Manuel Patrouillard. On the ground, neutrality is an absolute prerequisite for our ability to intervene, to be protected, and to avoid becoming targets. We remain deeply committed to neutrality, but also to impartiality—which means basing our decisions solely on needs—and to independence from states, which is essential to our freedom of action.

These principles remain unchanged at Handicap International. However, they are now being challenged by ideologies that have resurfaced and are targeting us. Why? Because we are building an autonomous civil society—precisely what authoritarian regimes seek to weaken. Because we are forging connections between peoples and fostering cross-border and multicultural exchanges, where autocrats seek to isolate populations.

Faced with this, we can no longer remain passive. In our donor countries, when we are subjected to stigmatization or ideological manipulation, we have a duty to enter the political arena—not into a partisan, left-right debate, which must be avoided at all costs—but into a political debate in the noblest sense. We have things to say about the reality of aid, about what works and what does not.

We must denounce what we observe on the ground: war crimes, ineffective policies, dangerous measures. The example of the Gaza Foundation is tragic, having caused more than a thousand deaths in the deadliest food distribution in history. Pointing out what isn’t working isn’t a choice: it’s a responsibility. If we don’t do it, no one will do it for us.

Alain Boinet. But to avoid any misunderstanding, I assume this is a humanitarian political response or argument, and not an ideological political argument, as you seemed to imply?

Manuel Patrouillard. Absolutely. This is a humanitarian political stance, not an ideological one. We must avoid fruitless national or ideological debates and constantly bring the discussion back to what matters most: the meaning behind it. As the saying goes: the wise man points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger. Our responsibility is to look at the moon, and to refuse to let ourselves be trapped by the snares set by certain ideologues or future autocrats.

Alain Boinet. In the coming months, several important events will take place, such as the National Humanitarian Conference (CNH) in Paris on June 3, followed by the G7 summit from June 15 to 17 under the French presidency. Isn’t this a favorable moment for humanitarian actors, in the context you just mentioned, to take action and seek to influence the decisions that will be made or that could be made?

Manuel Patrouillard. We must obviously maintain a constant dialogue with the French government and continue to strengthen our capacity to influence, even though we know how constrained governments are today by complex agendas. But it is precisely during this period of geopolitical tensions and a sharp decline in funding that the humanitarian voice must carry weight: when budgets are tightening, every trade-off has immediate consequences for civilians’ access to care, protection, and survival.

But our role is also to help restore a sense of direction. This means tirelessly reiterating what must remain non-negotiable: respect for international humanitarian law, the protection of civilians, and impartial and unimpeded humanitarian access. It also means protecting those who deliver aid: humanitarian workers must never become targets, and attacks against them must be prevented, documented, and punished.

©HI – Speech by Manuel Patrouillard at the ceremony held at Dublin Castle on November 18, 2022, in tribute to civilian victims of contemporary conflicts and bombings. On the left is Izumi Nakamitsu, United Nations Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs.

In this regard, France should join countries like Spain, which today take a clear and consistent stance against the excesses of war-mongering governments and violations of international law. Calling things by their name, accepting the consequences, and clearly explaining to citizens what is right and what is wrong: this is essential.

We cannot maintain a double standard. What is true in Ukraine cannot be false in Gaza. We cannot maintain a double standard. What is true in Ukraine cannot be false in Gaza. That said, our expectations vary depending on the forum. The National Humanitarian Conference is an opportunity for France to lend credibility to its humanitarian ambitions, to clearly state what it stands for—the rule of law, access, and partnerships—without sidestepping the issue of resources.

The G7, for its part, is a forum where room for maneuver is very limited in the current context. Let’s hope its members show enough determination to collectively call for respect for international humanitarian law, demand impartial, safe, and unimpeded humanitarian access, and make the protection of humanitarian workers an operational priority.

Alain Boinet. Thank you for this interview. How would you like to conclude?

Manuel Patrouillard. We are at a moment of profound upheaval, of a paradigm shift. Over the years I’ve spent in the humanitarian sector, several observations have become clear to me.

First, the excessive fragmentation of international actors must be addressed. The diversity of civil society is a strength, but the proliferation of cumbersome structures, duplicated both at headquarters and in the field, undermines overall effectiveness.

Second, localization must be rethought from the perspective of accountability. We cannot localize without ensuring accountability, particularly regarding financial matters. Donors bear a major responsibility here.

Similarly, the UN system must undergo reform, particularly regarding frugality and value added.

Finally, we must also better integrate available innovation capabilities, including artificial intelligence, where we remain collectively too slow to act.

This reevaluation is necessary.

But I want to conclude on a decidedly positive note: civil society is indispensable. It is part of the solution, provided it can adapt, because it often enjoys stronger local acceptance, and because it remains best positioned to mobilize and deploy resources in a frugal and effective manner.

Manuel Patrouillard, Executive Director of the Handicap International Federation

Originally from the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region, Manuel Patrouillard pursued his studies in Paris, Madrid, and Lyon before enrolling at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales (HEC). A career in management then unfolded, marked by six years in the corporate sector, followed by some fifteen years in consulting, where he led large international teams across all continents from Paris, Lyon, and Geneva. In early 2013, seeking to give new meaning to his professional life, he accepted the role of interim director of Aide et Action France and Europe, which was then facing multiple challenges.

He remained in that position for a year, during which time he infused the organization with new energy, recruited, and brought in the new director. Following this assignment, he took the helm of Handicap International in March 2014 and has since dedicated himself to implementing a development and transformation strategy to address the explosion in humanitarian needs and the radical evolution of the international aid sector. Under his leadership, Handicap International has more than doubled its field operations while decentralizing its decision-making and management centers, thoroughly reforming its organization and operating methods, and aligning and revitalizing its network of approximately ten legal entities worldwide.

To discover Handicap International : ONG de solidarité internationale | Handicap International France

Discover the other articles of this edition :

Humanitarian Aid: The End of the Golden Age, Major Uncertainties… Solutions?

© UN News – Ximena Borrazás Maryna sits in a destroyed school classroom in Kherson where she used to teach Ukrainian literature.

Perhaps never before has the modern humanitarian movement—born of “Dunantism” and later of the “no-borders” movement—faced such a vast, brutal, rapid, and radical upheaval of the world—and of “its” world. With the emergence of global threats, interlinked crises feeding off one another, and a proliferation of unavoidable challenges, this is a decisive moment for humanitarian organizations, as their future role—or their disappearance as obsolete and ill-suited structures—is partly at stake here.

Before exploring the determining factors, the challenges, and possible responses, we must start with the needs. The needs of people in distress, and the resources hoped for to meet them, along with some key figures.

Current Situation

According to the United Nations, 239 million people “are expected to” need aid in 2026, but available resources will—at best—allow for the rescue of only one in three… Humanitarian aid has thus entered an era of “reprioritizing” needs and, above all, “selective sorting” of potential aid recipients. In this context, the United Nations launched a $23 billion funding appeal in December 2025 to assist… 87 million people in 2026. The goal is to provide vital aid to the most vulnerable, and this $23 billion represents approximately 1% of what the world spends on defense.

However, Tom Fletcher, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, emphasized during a press conference in Geneva on March 11, 2026, that this humanitarian appeal remains two-thirds underfunded…

At the same time, as Alain Boinet, founder of Défis Humanitaires, points out in a recent editorial, the world’s population of 8 billion will reach 10 billion in 25 years, and Africa’s population will have doubled. The demographic time bomb is ticking, while on January 20, 2025, the U.S. administration suspended all programs of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), before abolishing the agency, whose mission was taken over by the U.S. Department of State, which lacks the necessary experience. This cut in U.S. funding has had, and will continue to have, a devastating impact on countless essential programs—whether in health, epidemic prevention, or food security. USAID funding accounted for more than 40% of global humanitarian aid in 2024, supported projects in 158 countries, and provided up to 50% of total humanitarian aid for some of them… Even though some “life-saving aid” programs may have been exempted from funding suspensions, the volume of aid is in no way comparable to the previous situation; moreover, the new conditions imposed by the State Department—which we will return to—restrict access to the U.S. “funding window.” Moreover, the U.S. decision is merely the brutal, indiscriminate, and extreme manifestation of a trend toward reduced humanitarian funding, particularly in the West, a trend that began well before January 20, 2025.

Finally, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz following the war in Iran—due to the skyrocketing logistics and transportation costs for humanitarian organizations (as Tom Fletcher warned last March) and the resulting blockade of fertilizer components—could have catastrophic consequences, just as the planting season is about to begin in many parts of the world. Models from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) predict a collapse in grain yields of up to 50% in major African regions for the upcoming season. The World Food Programme (WFP) estimates that this fertilizer crisis is likely to expose an additional 45 million people to acute food insecurity, or even localized famines in already fragile areas (the Sahel, Somalia, Sudan, etc.). Time is running out: May 15 is considered the latest date by which fertilizer can be delivered in time. After that, the 2026 season will be partially lost. Alexander De Croo, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), estimated on April 23 that the effects of the blockade linked to the war in Iran would also “push another 30 million people back into poverty.”

Thus, caught between a sharp rise in both humanitarian needs and aid costs, yet a reordering of priorities in the response amid a global crisis of financial resources, humanitarian aid is caught in a tragic “scissors effect.”

One blade of the scissors is the shift in priorities for Western countries when it comes to budgetary trade-offs. High-intensity warfare has returned to our continent and threatens to spread to the Middle East and erupt in Asia. The time has come for rearmament. The use of force is unchecked in international relations; empires are back; threats are growing and converging. As in the Persian Gulf, where the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is pushing China and Asian countries into a corner—beyond the risk of uncontrollable regional spread—and plunging an already-struggling global economy… by the war in Ukraine, where the conflict—reignited on the Russian side by rising oil prices that finance its war—could spill over, leading to a direct NATO-Russia confrontation. During a hearing at the National Assembly to present the draft update to the 2024-30 Military Programming Law, the Chief of the General Staff, General Fabien Mandon, stated, “The persistence of a Russian threat on our continent, involving open warfare, remains my primary concern in terms of military preparedness.” In this context, the need to make up for the decline in military resources resulting from the illusion of “peace dividends” is, at the very least, legitimate, if not essential. The tide has turned, and humanitarian aid no longer occupies the forefront of concerns, whether among the general public or among decision-makers.

©OCHA – Trends in OCHA funding recorded by the Financial Tracking Service from 2016 to April 2026

Risks

In this coming world of “global violence,” will humanitarian organizations be able to find their place and their role? These organizations, structured, standardized, and “managed” like businesses (they have a “methodology” for everything…), sometimes plagued by a risk aversion fueled by the constraints imposed by donors, will they rediscover a culture of boldness, adaptability to unprecedented circumstances and contexts, and improvisation (almost a dirty word today…), and do so in very difficult, complex, and highly insecure contexts, thereby remaining indispensable? It is possible; it is not certain…

More specifically, high-intensity conflicts mean dangerous, denied, or contested humanitarian access, as well as the disruption or breakdown of supply chains, logistics, and communication systems (such as the Internet and satellite networks). How many humanitarian organizations have undertaken a fundamental review of their operational models, strategies, and modus operandi in order to adapt? There is a strong temptation to believe that the storm will pass, that everything can continue as is, and that the usual resources will always be available.

Another growing risk is the politicization of humanitarian aid. This risk has two aspects, one coming from the outside and one arising from within:

Abroad, humanitarian aid—which has always been somewhat political—is becoming, in an unchecked surge, increasingly politicized and manipulated by policymakers and donors. The best example of this is the conditions set by the U.S. Department of State, whose website features a statement signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio: “Foreign aid programs that align with the administration’s policies (and serve U.S. interests) will be administered by the Department of State, where they will be implemented with greater accountability, strategy, and efficiency.” The definition of “serving U.S. interests” is left to the discretion of the U.S. administration. Furthermore, at the end of the text, it states, “…we will prioritize trade over aid, opportunity over dependency, and investment over assistance”… The politicization of aid is also becoming a commercial endeavor from which returns and profitability are expected… While the U.S. stance is openly acknowledged, it would be naive to think it stands alone. When China, the Gulf states, or other sovereign wealth funds (and, in its own way, Europe…) finance humanitarian aid, they never forget—and will forget even less tomorrow than today—their interests and political agendas.

Internally, over the past decade or so, we have seen a growing politicization of humanitarian organizations themselves. Without always realizing it, these organizations are shaped and driven by ideologies that often lead them to seek to impose a progressive Western vision through their actions. The paradox is that, while their rhetoric speaks of “decolonizing humanitarian aid,” its practical application often amounts to a form of “neo-colonialism 3.0” driven by the certainty of being right. Moreover, the idea that “humanitarian work is political and must play a political role” is becoming increasingly widespread. Beyond that, in the context of certain conflicts, we have witnessed a “geopolitical politicization” of humanitarian aid, which has not always upheld the principles it professes—independence, impartiality, and neutrality—by effectively “taking sides” in both action and rhetoric, sometimes without nuance, for one “camp” and against the other. The problem, however, is that the general public “sees” the political and ideological excesses of NGOs and might conclude that, at heart, businesses are more reliable, less politicized, and less partisan. Ultimately, there is a risk of the humanitarian system committing “suicide” through a loss of credibility. The humanitarian sector must ask itself the fundamental question: “Do we want to save people/populations, or do we want to save/change the world and defend ideological ‘causes’?”

The ambition to save or change the world is, in part, driven by the desire to “do it all”—from lifesaving to development, from emergency response to the fight against climate change and gender policy… And all this while actively engaging in what is called “localization of aid”—that is, while concretely committing… to disengaging… The intentions are admirable, but are they realistic? He who grasps at too much loses everything…

Finally, shouldn’t the emergence and spread, at breakneck speed, of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the humanitarian sector—as everywhere else—give us pause for thought? AI is an extraordinary tool, and we must take advantage of the opportunities it offers to increase our efficiency tenfold, particularly when it comes to tedious, time-consuming tasks (compliance, data and inventory management and analysis, purchasing procedures, etc.). But it is a tool that can potentially be shut down or interrupted—or even manipulated. And it is a tool that, by virtue of its “training,” has biases; notably, it is designed to overwhelmingly favor the “probable” over the “improbable.” Yet the improbable (and the unprecedented!) remains possible… and sometimes occurs. Have we considered the degree of dependence we can—or cannot—accept on this tool? Have we considered the risks, in the near future, of delegating too many decisions to AI? Will the director of operations for a humanitarian NGO be an AI the day after tomorrow? Keeping the human element in humanitarian decision-making must be an imperative that the urgency of action cannot override.

©PAM/Afghanistan – The World Food Programme has 239 trucks, including those in the earthquake-stricken province of Ghor.

Possible solutions?

Let’s try to outline a few imperfect and partial approaches as responses to these challenges.

Return to fundamental principles. This may be the most essential step. Independence, impartiality, and neutrality—not merely as proclamations, but as concrete, daily demonstrations on the ground, stripped of any biased interpretation, preconceived ideology, complacency, or prejudice.

Accepting that we can no longer consider ourselves “untouchable.” Humanitarians, because they strive to “do good,” often feel it is unacceptable to be asked to explain themselves or be held accountable for certain aspects of their methods, their choices, or their messaging. All the more so if it is established authorities who take the liberty of questioning them or challenging their actions, their stance, or, once again, their complacency. Must independence mean immunity by divine right?

Refocus on our core missions: emergency response and post-emergency recovery. Stop trying to tackle everything and do it all. Saving lives and communities—that is what still makes us indispensable, and it is our sole “cause.” Of course, post-emergency work must also strengthen communities’ resilience to future shocks. And of course, the fate of the planet and climate change are issues and problems of overwhelming importance. But the comprehensive and decisive response to these goes beyond our mandate, our mission—the one for which people still believe in us, and whose impact depends on us.

Rethinking our supply chains and logistics. Not changing everything, but examining their vulnerabilities, imagining scenarios of disruption and unavailability. Consider alternative solutions, calculate their costs, and model them. And contemplate what cannot be modeled—a “logistics of the improbable, of the unprecedented”? Do the same with our communication tools (satellites, the internet). Do not abandon what works today—and even optimize it—but be prepared to do without it if necessary. Use digital tools and AI, for example, for distributing digital cash, mapping needs and beneficiaries, or collecting personalized information, but be able to quickly revert to a more “rustic” approach to decision-making and operations if necessary. Honesty compels us to acknowledge that, in many fields, numerous humanitarian teams demonstrate this resilience every day. All the more reason to continue cultivating it as our most valuable asset. This “wide gap” between mastering the most advanced tools and mastering the absence of them will be decisive for the future.

©Hulo – Shared Air Transport: Operational Support from the European Union for the Implementation of the Humanitarian Air Bridge

We must increasingly pool resources and tools—logistics, procurement, data, HR, and more—among humanitarian organizations, and innovate even further. When resources are in free fall, needs and costs are skyrocketing, and opportunities for efficiency gains are scarce, can we afford to hesitate in using them? The UN, a complex, cumbersome machine whose operations are far from streamlined, is attempting to set an example by launching a movement to “integrate” its agencies under the “New Humanitarian Pact.”

We must continue to develop, through coordination among humanitarian organizations, advocacy efforts directed at policymakers and donors—not focused on an illusory “We want things to go back to the way they were,” because that will not happen. In a sense, the humanitarian sector has been the spoiled child of a prosperous and peaceful Western society—a wonderful interlude that has now come to an end. Advocate for and defend a simple demand: “Do everything possible to meet humanitarian needs,” by demonstrating the impact of humanitarian action and its leverage in preventing future disasters—disasters far more severe and costly in terms of human lives and financial resources than the aid itself. In this effort, diversify the types of donors (something most NGOs have already undertaken), turning resolutely, following the example of the UN itself, toward civil society, businesses, and the general public; Tom Fletcher recently highlighted the launch of a global public campaign to bridge the remaining gap in UN aid funding for 2026… Antoine Vaccaro, President of Force for Good, spoke in a recent article in Défis Humanitaires about “Philanthropy in a Time of Chaos,” emphasizing that generosity has not disappeared but has evolved, and that humanitarian NGOs, now also immersed in a “war economy,” must learn to navigate and relearn how to mobilize by answering the question, “What have we made possible with our financial commitment to your cause?”…

Are these approaches revolutionary or magical? Is the outcome guaranteed? No. But they are clear-eyed, realistic, and indispensable. Perhaps unprecedented situations will give rise to other unprecedented approaches.

A conclusion in the form of a question: can the humanitarian sector afford the luxury of waiting for the return of the golden age? Most humanitarian organizations, which have begun adapting to the “great uncertainty” engulfing the world, have already started to answer.

Pierre Brunet

Pierre Brunet is a novelist and a member of the Board of Directors of the NGO SOLIDARITES INTERNATIONAL. He became involved in humanitarian work in Rwanda in 1994, then in 1995 in Bosnia, and has since returned to the field (Afghanistan in 2003, Calais jungle in 2016, migrant camps in Greece and Macedonia in 2016, Iraq and Northeast Syria in 2019, Ukraine in 2023). Pierre Brunet’s novels are published by Calmann-Lévy: “Barnum” in 2006, “JAB” in 2008, “Fenicia” in 2014 and “Le triangle d’incertitude” in 2017. A former journalist, Pierre Brunet regularly publishes analytical and opinion articles, or columns.

Discover the other articles of this edition :

Share :

Share :