Humanitarian work, hit but not sunk, get up!

© La Chaîne de l’Espoir – Wounded equipped by the Ukrainian center *Unbroken*

In anticipation of the upcoming G7 from June 15 to 17, 2026 in Evian, the French government commissioned IFOP to conduct a study (1) on the state of public opinions in the G7 countries (2) regarding official development assistance and international cooperation. The IFOP study holds surprises for us and raises a paradox. It engages here our analysis and proposals from Humanitarian Challenges.

As a reminder, the G7 was born in 1975 at the initiative of French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, after the first oil shock of 1973, in the context of the Yom Kippur War. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its global consequences will be very present at the 51st edition of the G7 member countries on the shores of Lake Geneva in Haute-Savoie. This G7 also mobilizes the “Civil Society 7” or C7, which brings together hundreds of actors with Coordination Sud (3), the French platform of international solidarity organizations.

This G7 will address for the first time an essential humanitarian issue, that of the global logistics supply chain. It will be preceded by only a few days by the 7th National Humanitarian Conference (CNH) on July 3 in Paris. CNH is organized by the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs and its Crisis and Support Center (CDCS) in connection with humanitarian NGOs of the Humanitarian Coordination Group (GCH).

But what exactly does the IFOP study tell us about the state ofpublic opinions of G7 countries on international cooperation?

What does the IFOP study tell us?

This very comprehensive study can essentially be summarized by several findings.

First, the marked interest of public opinions in international news, averaging 71%.

Next, a hierarchy of issues ranging from terrorism and extremism (72%), to conflicts (67%) and the economy (55%).

If international cooperation is a moral obligation for 70% of respondents, it is also a policy that serves our interests for an average of 78% within the G7 and 71% in France.

According to IFOP, the principle support for financing developing countries reaches 75%, with Italy ranking far ahead (84%) while France comes in last (66%).

But there are figures that catch our attention. The level of understanding of what international cooperation is stands at 50% on average and 46% in France.

The most problematic aspect lies in the low level of information that public opinions say they have, 47% on average in G7 countries and only 28% in France, where 50% of people say they are poorly informed and 20% very poorly informed!

Conversely, public expectation is very strong to know how international cooperation funding is used, 75% on average versus 82% in France. Another question, 75% ofpeople and 82% in France wonder what the concrete results of this cooperation are. But just as much, 75% ask what its usefulness is for each G7 country. Finally, note a demand for control for 73% on average and for 77% in France. The expectations for tangible and convincing evidence are very high and constitute a challenge for the future of international solidarity.

Moreover, what is truly surprising is the profound ignorance regarding the budget of the States that finances international cooperation. Only 2% of respondents know that this percentage is less than 1%, while 16% think it represents between 10 to 15%. This amount is estimated by the French at 14.7% of Gross National Income (4) while the actual percentage allocated to Official Development Assistance (ODA) in 2025 was actually 0.42%! The gap is considerable and indicates an abyssal lack of accurate information.

To summarize broadly, a strong majority of the populations of the G7 member countries are in favor of international aid which they greatly overestimate while asking to be better informed about the relevance of projects, their concrete impact (only 37% of French people consider that aid is effective), about rigorous control of implementation and, finally, about the interest of this cooperation for the donor countries themselves.

Finally, 64% of inhabitants believe that what will happen in developing countries could have a significant impact on their lives. It should be noted that public opinion in France is one of the most reserved regarding cooperation policy.

But what do the latest figures on Official Development Assistance tell us?

The recent report from the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (5) notes a 23.1% decrease in Official Development Assistance in 2025 with a budget of 174.3 billion dollars.

© OECD – The evolution of official development assistance in the world

26 of the 34 OECD DAC member countries reduced their aid in 2025, and decreases had already occurred in 2023 and 2024. France’s aid in 2025 was 14.53 billion dollars, or 0.42% of GNI. This had already decreased by 11% in 2023 and by 13% in 2024. According to Coordination Sud, aid could be reduced by 58% in France over 2 years. The OECD anticipates a further decrease of 5.8% in 2026.

Humanitarian aid from DAC countries has sharply decreased by 35.8% to 15.5 billion dollars, marking a second consecutive decline after 5 years of growth (2019-2023).

To better understand these figures, note that 5 DAC countries (United States, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, and France) account for 95.7% of the total ODA decrease, but the United States alone is responsible for three-quarters of this decline with ODA down 56.9% compared to 2024. The top 5 contributors represent an amount of 132.02 billion dollars out of a total of 174.3 in 2025.

For reference, non-DAC countries dedicated 13.3 billion dollars to cooperation and 11.7 billion to 30 major philanthropic foundations that report their donations to the OECD.

Finally, projections indicate a further 5.8% decrease in DAC ODA in 2026, a figure that does not take into account the consequences of the war in the Middle East and the embargo in the Strait of Hormuz.

© OECD – Official development assistance in France

Paradox, analysis and consequences.

A paradox appears in the opposition between a majority of inhabitants of the G7 countries who still support international cooperation and the strong, rapid, and ongoing reduction in the funding of international cooperation by the G7 countries and the DAC.

The first explanation that comes to mind is a gap in understanding and attitude between public opinion and governments. Citizens still habitually support international cooperation while states have already drawn the consequences of the profound shifts underway in international relations, power dynamics, interests, and risks of war.

In this context, there are two realizations on the part of Western countries, particularly Europe, since from now on we must set aside the United States under Donald Trump.

The first is the emergence of so-called southern countries grouped in the BRICS, which represent about ten countries (6), influenced by former empires aspiring to become so again, like Russia and China, and which challenge the world order born at the end of the Second World War as well as the Western model (democracy, rule of law, market economy).

The 16th edition of the BRICS Summit in Kazan (Russia) on October 24th 2024

The case of several Sahel countries such as Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso is emblematic. Why cooperate with countries whose governments come from military coups, who demand the departure of French troops, who call on Russian mercenaries from the Africa Corps, and who require the absence of French public funding in humanitarian and development NGO projects. This profoundly changes public cooperation policies even though the vital needs of populations victimized by war and chronic poverty still legitimize humanitarian action.

The second shock is the awareness of the risk of a war extension following Russia’s attack on Ukraine on February 22, 2022. Thus, war becomes once again in Europe a means of conquest and it could be renewed, particularly against the Baltic countries. This would force NATO member countries to react to the risk of being drawn into the war while most of these countries are not ready to fight it and must prepare by rearming without American commitment being certain anymore.

If you combine these two external shocks with internal risks on the political, economic, and social levels in some countries, as happened in the United States with Donald Trump’s second election, you then have sufficient reasons to understand the ongoing changes in priorities.

Handbook by the Swedish government “En cas de crise ou de guerre” 2024

And yet, for these countries, continuing these cooperation policies in an adapted form is indeed a necessity in order not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and to resist the pressures of the neo-emerging empires.

What challenges for the next National Humanitarian Conference?

France’s humanitarian budget was 285 million euros last year while it was 800 million in 2023 and should have been one billion euros in 2025.

Since the 1st National Humanitarian Conference in 2011, we have only seen progress, first with the creation of this Conference, then that of the Humanitarian Consultation Group, but also the adoption of a Humanitarian Strategy of the French Republic and, finally, the continuous increase of the humanitarian budget and ODA starting from 2018.

© Alain Boinet – 2021 National Humanitarian Conference

The next CNH on July 3 cannot therefore follow in the footsteps of the previous ones but, on the contrary, seeks both to measure the decline in order to contain it while looking for alternatives, alliances, new perspectives.

This CNH will have 3 main topics on the agenda.

The humanitarian space and international humanitarian law.
Humanitarian reform or “reset”, innovation and pooling.
Partnership and funding.

The challenge is great because we must understand that the fall in funding, the erosion of humanitarian authority, the decline of international humanitarian law, and the restriction of access to aid for populations in danger are linked to each other and lead to a negative spiral! This is what must be stopped and a new dynamic restarted.

If we have already discussed these issues in Défis Humanitaires, I would like this month to focus on 4 of them:

In a preparatory document for the G7, the Ministry of Finance and Budget mentions the choice to “move from a logic of assistance to a logic of mutually beneficial partnership.” If this logic of ODA as an investment partnership with solvent countries can be considered, how would this be possible with poor countries victims of war, disaster, or a devastating epidemic?
Humanitarian urgency must remain an unconditional moral duty, but also a strategic duty to prevent the spread of misery and chaos of close to neighboring countries, even beyond
Human security should better inspire humanitarian action in the future based on its food, health, economic, personal, community, and political components, as the insecurity of some can become the insecurity of others.
Let us note that while ODA has decreased by 23.1%, humanitarian aid has dropped by 35.8%! To avoid this drift, we should return to the idea of “sanctuarizing humanitarian aid” within ODA and dedicating a minimum of 9% of its total amount to it.
Finally, since public funding is down, why not launch a humanitarian lottery in France?

Conclusion.

Every change of era brings a change of priorities. But the moral and strategic necessity of humanitarian and development aid must remain a constant to save lives, lift people out of poverty, and generate sustainable development.

In a world that is both divided and interdependent where everything is known, solidarity remains a comparative advantage that distinguishes the supportive from the predators. There is no incompatibility for a country to serve its population and interests while delivering emergency relief where it is vital, while supporting development that is in everyone’s interest.

Without forgetting to respond to citizens’ strong expectations for information regarding the relevance of cooperation, its impact, good management, and the mutually beneficial partnerships it creates.

That is precisely the mission set by Défis Humanitaires, in this edition as in previous ones, is to act against misinformation as well as disinformation.

You too can be an actor in this humanitarian mission by sharing our magazine around you and supporting it with your donation (makeadonation) to allow it to exist, to last, and to develop for its readers. Thank you.

Alain Boinet.

Footnotes :

https://www.afd.fr/fr/ressources/sondage-g7-partenariats-internationaux
Member countries of the G7 : France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Canada, United-States, Japan.
Coordination Sud, website of the C7 dedicated to the G7. https://2026civil7.org/fr/
Revenu National Brut “Le RNB comprend le produit intérieur brut (PIB) et les revenus nets du travail et de la propriété reçus de l’étranger dont on soustrait les revenus versés à l’étranger”.
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and developpement. OECD and APD : https://www.oecd.org/fr/topics/policy-issues/official-development-assistance-oda.html#:~:text=L’aide%20internationale%20a%20connu,1%20%25%20par%20rapport%20%C3%A0%202024.

Discover the other articles of this edition :

Alain Boinet is the president of the association Défis Humanitaires which publishes the online review www.defishumanitaires.com. He is the founder of the humanitarian association Solidarités International of which he was director general for 35 years. Moreover, he is a member of the Humanitarian Consultation Group with the Crisis and Support Center of the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, member of the Board of Directors of Solidarités International, of the French Water Partnership (PFE), of the Véolia Foundation, of the Think Tank (re)sources. He continues to go to the field (north-east Syria, Haut-Karabagh/Artsakh and Armenia) and to testify in the media.

Humanitarian Work in Search of a Future

© UN News – Children in Gaza wait to fill their empty saucepans with food

Humanitarian crises are caused by wars, disasters, and epidemics, most often in poor countries. The response to these crises relies first on local community solidarity, followed by assistance from international humanitarian organizations. These, in turn, depend on the response capabilities of humanitarian actors, public and private funding, access to victims, and cooperation among relief actors on the ground.

The sharp decline in public humanitarian funding, geopolitical fragmentation, and the erosion of international humanitarian law are severely impacting relief efforts for victims.

Thus, one of the immediate effects of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran is to block all trade in the Strait of Hormuz, with multiple global consequences that notably affect the export of fertilizers essential for agriculture, particularly in the poorest countries. This also carries a high risk of triggering a food crisis in the Middle East! This war is spreading to Lebanon, which already has over one million displaced people, including 350,000 children, more than a thousand deaths, and the risk of southern Lebanon being annexed with no possibility of the population returning, as Israel has declared.

This editorial, like every other article from this edition of Défis Humanitaires, aim at providing analysis, testimonies, examples, tools for readers as well as actors of geopolitics, humanitarian work, their partners and parlementaries, journalists, Think Tanks and Faculties, followers and doners who help making possible the publication of Défis Humanitaires.

Factors Driving Global Geopolitical Change.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, the ouster of President Maduro in Venezuela, Donald Trump’s re-election, the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, and other threats are upending international relations, risking the very denial of the rule of law.

The return of empires, the symmetrical assertiveness of nation-states, and the emergence of countries in the “Global South” are major contributors to this ongoing dynamic of fragmentation, conflict, and recomposition.

In this context, the president of the world’s leading power, Donald Trump, has as his sole agenda “America Trump First,” which blends both isolationism and interventionism in all global affairs based on the “deal” of power dynamics and interests.

Meeting between heads of states and governements in London to support Volodymyr Zelenky after his altercation with Donald Trump on February 28 at the White House. © European Union, 2025

This aggression will have the opposite effect of radicalizing all parties and situations, as we can see from the increase in defense budgets! Does this make the world any safer, and doesn’t this constant escalation inevitably lead to war in all its forms?

And this does nothing to address, beyond the legitimate interests of each country, the challenges facing all of humanity—challenges that are all sources of collective danger: climate change, melting glaciers, pollution, loss of biodiversity, the drinking water crisis, epidemics, demographics, the criminal economy, the potential proliferation of military nuclear weapons, and so on.

In this new context, the weakening of the UN and of multilateralism equally diminishes the institutions capable of regulation through negotiation.

And yet, we must effectively coordinate the global trade necessary for 8 billion people—who will number 10 billion in 25 years, with Africa’s population set to double! Where are the plans to anticipate this demographic shock? What will be the consequences of our lack of preparation?

Strengths, Weaknesses, and Prospects for the Humanitarian Sector.

In a new context where we are witnessing the erosion of international law and where the humanitarian sector is likely to lose half of its public funding, it is useful to take stock of the situation to identify its strengths—so as to optimize them—and its weaknesses—so as to address them—and to explore new avenues and methods yet to be devised.

Without claiming to be exhaustive, these strengths are first and foremost those of commitment and the motivation to act to save lives. They also include responsiveness and pragmatism, as well as professional experience and expertise. There are donor support networks and the coordination of organizations with donors as well as on the ground. Above all, we must not forget the proximity to local populations, public opinion, the media, and government authorities—both in the countries that provide aid and in the countries where it is implemented for populations at risk.

On the downside, we note a lack of strategic foresight, though this is offset, it is true, by a strong capacity for adaptation. We should also highlight the weakness of communication, which is primarily directed at its own staff and which, despite donor support, struggles to break out of its silo and gain broader influence. With a few rare exceptions, NGOs’ business models are either fragile or dependent, lacking significant capacity for investment and renewal.

The mixed Solidarités International-Véolia team around an Aquaforce 2000 in Ukraine. Photo : Veolia Foundation

This brief overview lays the groundwork for a number of initiatives aimed at strengthening our organization while adapting—and even transforming. With this in mind, let us highlight a few potential avenues for progress.

Forge new alliances with individual donors, institutional donors, businesses and foundations, the media, research centers, and among humanitarian organizations themselves.
Revamp communication by documenting the human consequences of crises with concrete and compelling examples.
Better measure the impact of the actions implemented and demonstrate to the public how the resources mobilized improve the lives of populations at risk and save lives, while establishing sustainable responses to essential needs.
Show how innovation and pooling of resources enable us to be closer to the people, act more quickly, be more effective, and optimize resources and every euro.
At a more strategic level, demonstrate how human security is a prerequisite for international security, as well as why and how national solidarity is compatible with international solidarity.
Share, illustrate, and promote the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence as the foundation of all action, while avoiding the risks of politicization and division that would weaken us.

Défis Humanitaires doesn’t have all the answers, but our journal explores avenues, solutions, and options both within and outside the “toolbox.” Please feel free to send us your comments and suggestions at: contact@defishumanitaires.com

Défis Humanitaires’ Commitment to You.

Défis Humanitaires is a nonprofit organization established under the French law of 1901 that publishes an independent, free online journal. The costs of this publication are covered by the volunteer work of its expert committee members and numerous contributors (complete list of contributors), as well as by humanitarian and geopolitical networks and by donors who make each new issue possible.

If we were to think in terms of a “business model,” there would be nothing. What makes the difference for Défis Humanitaires are the convictions, the commitment, the experience gained, the friends, donors, and authors without whom this would not exist. And now we are also witnessing the emergence of a new geopolitical era where confrontation is taking hold and war looms, at the very moment when public humanitarian and development funding is collapsing while needs are growing.

This Issue 111 is emblematic of our journal. You will discover a fascinating interview with Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, a seasoned diplomat, who explains the past to us and sheds light on the present and the future. We are very excited to publish testimonials from NGOs such as Électriciens Sans Frontières (ESF), with its president Hervé Gouyet, who presents the results of four years of engagement in Ukraine.

Similarly, we hear from the Solinfo association, which has been active in Bangladesh for 22 years, with a field report that takes us along with Thierry Liebaut, its secretary general, who has just returned from there. In the field of innovation, following last month’s presentation of the remarkable tool, the Solis bot, Antoine Vaccaro of Force For Good offers us a remarkable analysis of philanthropy in times of chaos. Regarding global access to drinking water and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 2015–2030), Gérard Payen, vice president of the French Water Partnership, provides an overview of the current situation and strategic challenges of the upcoming UN World Water Summit, which will take place in December 2026 in Abu Dhabi.

A New Défis Humanitaires.

In the face of ongoing geopolitical and humanitarian upheavals, our magazine must adapt, evolve, and change to better fulfill its mission and meet readers’ expectations.

This process concerns both content and form. How can we adapt our editorial line to the new geopolitical context? How can we interpret current events to anticipate the world to come? How can we reposition the humanitarian sector, which has been hit hard by the drastic decline in public funding? How can we mobilize new partners and allies? How can we adapt, change, and reinvent ourselves?

How can we adapt our layout and offer new features to our readers? What direction should we take in terms of graphic identity to better express a renewed editorial line?

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these questions with us. It’s very simple—just write to us at contact@defishumanitaires.com

However, while volunteer work is essential to achieving this, it is not enough on its own. We urgently need your support to cover the costs of this new layout and to expand our editorial team so that we can fully develop our content, including articles, testimonials, interviews, and visual materials.

I am therefore appealing to the generosity of our readers—who are our closest and most loyal supporters—by inviting you to make a donation at (faireundon), for which you will receive a tax receipt entitling you to a tax deduction of 66% of the amount donated.

Thank you very much for your support of Défis Humanitaires, a unique monthly magazine that hopes to bring this project to fruition thanks to you. Thank you.

Alain Boinet.

President of Défis Humanitaires.

Discover the other articles of this edition :

Share :

Share :