It has been 18 months since the “humanitarian financial tsunami” struck us, triggering a profound upheaval in relief efforts and organizations. Everyone is adapting and everyone is searching for a new model. Through its articles, interviews, and reports, Défis Humanitaires intends to actively contribute to information, understanding, debate, and the search for alternatives so that humanitarian action may survive.

 

What do the key figures tell us?

ALNAP, a network of international and national humanitarian NGOs, has just published a very interesting 2026 Report (1) on global humanitarian aid. I will highlight just a few figures and indicators that give a clear picture of the situation.

International humanitarian aid has fallen by a third since 2023, and there is a risk that fragmentation and divergence between actors could undermine aid itself.

Among the key figures, note that:

• The humanitarian aid budget stood at 47.4 billion US dollars in 2023, compared to 33.3 billion in 2025, due to cuts by the main donor countries.
• In 2025, 18 of the 20 largest crises saw their funding decrease, even though the European Union increased its contribution to these countries.
• This is leading to “hyper-prioritization,” which selects who receives aid, particularly in protracted crises. 152 million people have thus been pushed to the back burner of aid this year.
• This contraction in funding is affecting localization and the humanitarian-development-peace Nexus, risking the sacrifice of the transition process.
• The decision by the United States, which remains the world’s top donor, to route funding through OCHA (the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) is transforming its coordinating role into that of a funding-access manager.
• Private funding is following the same trend, having fallen by 40% from its 2022 peak.
• In its report’s conclusion, ALNAP calls for “radically rethinking the situation” and developing a “new vision for humanitarian action.”

The question now is how much funding will decline further in 2026 and 2027. Will the decline continue, or will it stabilize?

 

The European Commission steps up.

All actors are moving and repositioning themselves. This is particularly true of the European Union, a major partner that is becoming increasingly important in this context.

In a document (2) published on May 27, 2026, it sent a communication to the European Parliament and the European Council of Heads of State and Government, titled “Defending values, driving reform, delivering results: the European Union’s humanitarian action in a changing world order.”

One can appreciate the phrase “changing world order,” amid the war in Ukraine and the one in Iran and the Middle East.

In this document, rich with observations, commitments, and key actions, I have selected a few points that set the tone and indicate the direction. It is structured around three pillars: protect, perform, partnership.

• To protect means helping to prevent, mitigate, and resolve humanitarian crises. A clarification is needed here. The risk lies in conflating humanitarian crisis with war, which would be a serious mistake. A humanitarian crisis is the consequence of a war that becomes amplified for the population in a poor country. Indeed, is it even possible to resolve a humanitarian crisis without resolving the war that caused it in the first place?
• The term “humanitarian diplomacy” is emerging strongly, both to promote humanitarian principles and International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
• In a context of growing political and geopolitical division, preventing the politicization of aid is clearly reaffirmed.
• The protection of humanitarian workers in the field is prioritized at a time when insecurity for them is increasing.

• To perform means reforming humanitarian supply chains, with a draft charter as a centerpiece. I invite you to refer to the two articles on hulo in this edition.
• Simplification appears to be on the agenda, with a reduction in administrative burden. We would very much like to believe this, if the Commission finally follows through on this simplification!
• Strengthening flexible multi-year funding. It’s written down — now do it!
• Partnership.
• The crisis facing the humanitarian system cannot be addressed by humanitarian actors alone. Certainly true, but only on the condition that principles are respected.
• The integrated approach to rising global fragility aims to tackle its root causes. But with what resources?
• The call for private-sector involvement is growing stronger, notably through the World Economic Forum. A humanitarian “instruction manual” still needs to be put in place.
• The European Commission reaffirms its determination to promote “Team Europe.” While it’s true that coordinated synergies can generate real added value, one must be wary of the temptation to want to direct everything, in a world where the diversity of actors is an asset, and where interoperability effectively strengthens partnership.
• The European Commission announces a first assessment of this strategy in 2028 — that is, just as the 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework begins. What will the humanitarian aid budget be then, along with that of the emergency reserve fund?

 

Going beyond the identified approaches, to the roots of the crisis!

The diversity of actors naturally calls for a diversity of approaches and solutions, adaptable to each one. This is a prerequisite at the scale of the ecosystem.

We have already discussed, here as elsewhere, these approaches and solutions — whether cost reduction, pooling of resources, innovation, coordination, or even mergers between NGOs, the private sector, and individual donors. We won’t go back over this today, as it is well known and already underway to varying degrees within humanitarian organizations. We will continue to follow these initiatives for our readers, as we do in this edition with two articles on resource-pooling with hulo.

But it is of great importance to understand the change of era we are living through, in order to conceive of a strategic break for the humanitarian sector. Since the 1980s, we have lived through four major periods in international relations.

The Cold War in the 1980s and the birth of modern humanitarianism. The period from 1989 to 2001, marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR, followed by the resulting breakup in Yugoslavia and elsewhere. The shift into the war on terror triggered by Al-Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And then the rupture caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 22, 2022, and Donald Trump’s first election. This period intensified further in January 2025 following his second election. Beyond this president’s whims, what is at stake is a profound and lasting strategic shift.

The essential takeaway is that humanitarian aid, which had continuously grown and become more organized since 1980 — over 45 years — experienced in 2025 a massive, sudden halt and a retreat, as if its necessity had become marginal, if not pointless, in today’s world. The accelerated decline in official development assistance (ODA) for humanitarian aid and development is not a mistake or an accident, but the result of political decisions driven by shifting priorities and agendas. Have we fully understood all the reasons behind this, and have we drawn all the necessary lessons from it?

The situation in France is serious, as Coordination Sud has warned us that the government has frozen allocated funding for 75 aid organizations, amounting to 61.6 million euros! Where do things stand? How can we trust the State’s word? I fear our country is gravely ill from its debt, and that the coffers are empty!

The European Commission’s document states that there are currently 130 conflicts worldwide — more than double the number recorded 15 years ago — and they account for roughly 70% of global humanitarian needs.

The vicious cycle we are entering is this: in the face of rising conflicts and humanitarian needs for populations, the response is a drastic reduction in resources! How can one believe this will not lead to an expansion of conflicts, a greater number of victims, and collateral effects for everyone, if we fail to address the root of the problem — both geopolitically, by seeking to contain crises, and humanitarianly, by limiting human devastation and offering hope of recovery. Continuing down this path would be not only a moral failing but a political and geopolitical mistake.

Public opinion, moreover, is not mistaken about this. Let us recall that the IFOP study (3) across the 7 G7 member countries found that 64% of their populations believe that what is happening in developing countries or in humanitarian emergencies could have a significant impact on their own lives. This is why support for these populations reaches 75% (66% in France). And the public is asking to be better informed! A message for humanitarian actors!

 

In conclusion.

Commissioner Hadja Lahbib, in charge of humanitarian aid for the European Commission, recently published a timely op-ed titled “Humanitarian diplomacy can no longer be relegated to the margins of international politics.” The reality is that it is the populations in danger who are being relegated to oblivion!

We, as humanitarian workers, must not only continue our work, as Triangle Génération Humanitaire (TGH) shows us in this edition in Birao, Central African Republic. We must also adapt our communication and demonstrate why and how this essential, effective, well-managed aid has positive consequences for us as well. Here I am speaking of humanitarian policy, not ideology.

I would go further and address myself to sovereigntists, of the left as well as the right. The legitimate defense of one’s own country — true everywhere, for every country — is compatible with providing relief to populations of other countries in distress. It is, in fact, their responsibility and their honor!

Alain Boinet.

 

Footnotes :

1. Alnap report.
2. Communication of the European Commission from May the 27th, 2026.
3. IFOP Report about the G7.

---

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.

---

Discover other articles from this edition :

• Once upon a time in Vakaga… – Magali Ratajczak
• Interview with Jean-Baptiste Lamarche, head director of hulo
• Humanitarian: Supply Chain Pooling Is Underway with HULO – Salomée Languille
• Armenia at a Crossroads in Its Destiny – Arthur Robert
• Hervé Gouyet, former president of Electriciens Sans Frontières, writes to Défis Humanitaires