Anouchka Fincker
As a loyal reader of Défis Humanitaires, I recognize a rare quality in this journal: its ability to combine thoughtful reflection with rigorous experience. In a sector often consumed by urgency, it offers a space for thought that connects the field, diplomacy, and foresight.
Its diversity of viewpoints, the clarity of its analyses, and its commitment to the spirit of engagement that drives it make it a valuable resource for those who want to understand before they act. It has managed to preserve its independent tone, and this is undoubtedly its greatest strength.
But a vibrant journal must also dare to embrace contradiction. In the future, I would like to see more voices from the South, from practitioners who experience humanitarian work on a daily basis, far from institutional circles. These perspectives, sometimes discordant, are essential for continuing to think about our actions with accuracy and humility.
Défis Humanitaires enlightens, questions, and connects. May it continue to do so, with ever greater boldness—for that is the price that must be paid to keep humanitarian thinking alive.
Jean Launay :
Committed to the issue of water and sanitation both through civil society as President of the French Water Partnershipfrom 2016 to 2022 and institutionally as President of the National Water Committee since 2012, the journal Défis Humanitaires has opened its pages to me several times, allowing me to reaffirm some deeply held convictions.
Water, a common good, is still not accessible to all, and it is essential to find spaces for public debate to remind everyone of this.
Water is the marker of climate change, by its excesses and/or its shortages, and being able to write about it so that it is read helps to combat climate skepticism.
While sobriety is essential in societies of abundance, we must remember that this is not the case everywhere on the planet.
Finally, we have the duty to consider water as an issue of peace and to denounce all those who use it as a weapon of war.
Défis Humanitaires enables all this and must be able to continue its in-depth work.
Esther de Montchalin :
I had the opportunity to work alongside Alain Boinet as an intern for six months in this effort of reflection and research that helps make Défis Humanitaires a high-quality publication, bringing genuine added value to the humanitarian sector.
Maintaining this journal every month requires considerable investment, rigor, and real intellectual discipline to ensure serious and in-depth content.
Working with Alain, who has long and rich experience in the humanitarian field, and participating in the life of the journal, has been both inspiring and motivating. This experience strengthened my conviction in the importance of upholding and defending the values of the humanitarian sector in the years to come.
Défis Humanitaires is a true point of reference in a period marked by uncertainty and geopolitical upheaval. It sheds light on the complex challenges of the humanitarian sector and offers essential analytical tools to better understand today’s world.
Supported by contributions from experts, researchers, writers, and field practitioners, the journal guides its readers each month through an in-depth reflection on ongoing transformations.
Thus, Défis Humanitaires allows us to grasp the scope of global change, while reminding us of the need to pursue commitment toward a fairer, more humane, and more united world.
Jean Bernard Veron :
The Question of Aid: Challenges and Paths to Solutions
Aid, whether described as humanitarian or developmental (a distinction that often does not match the realities on the ground), is today confronted with major challenges. This necessarily calls for solutions, and therefore for increased dialogue and reflection among all potentially concerned actors. This is precisely the kind of engagement that Défis Humanitaires has been involved in for many years.
The challenges are multiple.
On the one hand, in donor countries, we are witnessing the rise of nationalism and a sharp reduction in public aid budgets, not only in the United States since the dissolution of USAID, but also in several European countries, including France. Added to this are political, rather than scientific, discourses calling into question the effectiveness of aid and its implementation methods.
On the other hand, in some recipient countries, governments and societies denounce what they perceive as a tool of geopolitical control and domination.
Furthermore, the world faces situations that gravely affect the populations of the poorest countries. Such is the case with the impact of global warming and climate disruptions, with prolonged floods and droughts severely affecting rural activities such as agriculture and livestock farming.
Moreover, there are wars and armed conflicts, mostly in what are called the “Global South”, that result in countless deaths and massive displacements, as seen for instance in Sudan, which likely holds the record in numerical terms, not to mention the Sahel countries, Somalia, and Myanmar.
The search for solutions to these challenges must focus on several priority points.
First, it is essential to foster multi-stakeholder dialogue and reflection on the question of aid, its motivations, objectives, implementation methods, and outcomes, bringing together as many actors as possible: donor and recipient governments, United Nations agencies, and the public implementation bodies of donor countries. Added to these are, outside the public sphere, civil society in recipient countries and the organizations that structure it, as well as, in donor countries, NGOs working on this issue and private financiers such as certain international foundations.
The results of such exchanges may not be immediately evident, given the number of actors involved. But that is not a sufficient reason to avoid them, especially when supported by arguments firmly grounded in field realities.
The second point concerns what is known as the localization of aid, meaning the establishment of close relationships on the ground with the societies concerned and their organizations—both for analyzing situations and for deciding what should be implemented and how. This would help to erase the image of aid as something “parachuted in” by donor countries.
The third point is to reduce, or even eliminate, the distinction between humanitarian aid and development aid, for two main reasons.
The first is that effective, context-appropriate development aid can have a positive impact on preventing the need for humanitarian aid, even in situations of tension or armed confrontation between communities—as illustrated by projects led by the French Development Agency (AFD) to ease tensions between sedentary farmers and nomadic herders in various African countries.
The second reason is that appropriate humanitarian aid should not be limited to meeting the immediate vital needs of affected populations, but should also be involved in the aftermath of its interventions. This calls for an approach that weaves together emergency, reconstruction, and development.
To conclude, I would say that even if aid has not always been flawless in its outcomes for impoverished or distressed populations, it has nevertheless helped them to improve their condition and to build a more positive and less uncertain future.
CALL TO READERS
Défis Humanitaires is launching a collective reflection on the changes in the world that justify the evolution of the magazine and its layout. Thank you for:
- Read our appeal: read the editorial
- Send us your content suggestions at: contact@defishumanitaires.com
- Share your feedback on the layout at: contact@defishumanitaires.com
- Support the project: make a donation via HelloAsso
Thank you for your commitment and loyalty to Défis Humanitaires.
You must be logged in to post a comment.