Interview with Maria Groenewald, VOICE Director

A plea in favour of European humanitarian aid

© EPA/Ahmed Jallanzo, The Conversation – A Liberian burial team during the world’s biggest Ebola outbreak in the DRC in 2014 : an outbreak of Ebola has just been announced in the DRC

Alain Boinet. Could you tell us a bit about your background and VOICE?

Maria Groenewald. First of all, thank you very much for the invitation. For 34 years, VOICE has been the leading advocacy network for humanitarian action in Brussels. Nearly 90 organizations from 18 European countries are currently members, and the network continues to grow; we hope to welcome new members at our Annual General Assembly in June. For me, this is a sign that our collective work for humanitarian action is more important than ever. Together, we will continue to be the main voice of international NGOs in Brussels to promote humanitarian action and its principles.

Alain Boinet. We thank you for this interview and for introducing VOICE. We are all witnessing the decline in humanitarian funding among European Union countries and members of the OECD—the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which brings together the world’s most developed nations. How do you interpret this worrying decline for humanitarian action? What are the consequences for VOICE’s 90 member organizations, and where do ECHO and the European Commission stand in terms of funding for this year, 2026?

Maria Groenewald. This is a very worrying development. We are seeing several Member States turning their backs on their commitment to international solidarity, citing domestic issues and the need to prioritize defense spending, even though humanitarian aid accounts for only a very small portion of public spending. At the EU level, humanitarian aid accounts for about 1% of the European budget. Yet political discourse increasingly tends to pit humanitarian funding against other budgetary priorities.

© Our World in Data – Graph on the share that foreign aid represents of the national income

The reduction in funding for humanitarian action is a political choice, not an inevitability. It is important to remember that humanitarian funding is minimal and represents a small portion of national budgets compared to spending categories such as defense. The reduction in humanitarian funding has serious consequences for the millions of people facing humanitarian crises. For example, a study published in The Lancet demonstrated that if the current trend of declining official development assistance persists, the number of additional deaths will reach 9.4 million among children under the age of 5. Lives are truly at stake.

© Maria Groenewald – La Directrice de VOICE s’exprime devant la Comission du Développement (DEVE) du Parlement européenne en avril 2026

Despite this challenging context, there are still some positive signs. DG ECHO’s initial budget for 2026 was €1.9 billion, and so far, the European Commission has managed to maintain a stable level of humanitarian funding over the years, with funding sometimes even increasing thanks to the mobilization of additional funds. Thus, the European Commission remains a major supporter of international humanitarian action and the principles upon which it is founded.

The real challenge for European humanitarian funding lies in the negotiations for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, which will determine the overall budget allocated to humanitarian aid from 2028 to 2034.

Alain Boinet. Like funding, international humanitarian law is on the decline—and with it the humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence, which face a risk of politicization by certain states and other actors. What is VOICE’s perception, position, and perspective on this issue? Today, how do you interpret the European Commission’s stance on the risk of politicization?

Maria Groenewald. It is true that we are facing a difficult situation due to a lack of funding, but also because humanitarian action is increasingly being challenged, politicized, and exploited.

For VOICE, it is very important to return to humanitarian principles. Why? Humanitarian principles are not abstract values: they are operational tools that enable access to populations during humanitarian crises and ensure the protection of vulnerable populations and humanitarian workers. The European Commission must maintain a clear policy framework—one in which humanitarian action is guided by needs and these principles. The European Union’s leadership must be defined by its ability to defend humanitarian action against any politicization and instrumentalization.

To date, the European Commission—and DG ECHO in particular—has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to humanitarian principles and respect for international humanitarian law. Several ECHO-funded initiatives are currently underway and are aligned with these principles. We also hope that this will be emphasized in the Commission’s new strategy, to be published in late May: “The European Commission’s Communication on Humanitarian Aid.” However, more needs to be done at the level of European institutions, beyond ECHO. We are therefore very pleased that the publication of a “Staff Working Document” on humanitarian diplomacy, accompanying the Communication, is planned. The EU must use this strategy to position itself as a leading, consistent, and credible actor in the field of international humanitarian law and the fight against impunity, including when violations occur in politically sensitive contexts.

© Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union / Julien Nizet – Maciej Popowski, Director-General of ECHO, at the European Humanitarian Forum

Beyond reaffirming legal commitments, EU leadership requires political coherence and clear public stances, as well as the use of all the EU’s political, diplomatic, and normative tools to combat impunity, hold those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law accountable, and promote respect for that law.

Alain Boinet. Could you remind us exactly what the EU’s multiannual financial framework entails, what the stakes are, and where we stand in its preparation?

Maria Groenewald. The multiannual financial framework (MFF) sets the European Union’s long-term budget. The one currently under negotiation will cover the period 2028–2034. The key issue for us concerns the funding allocated to humanitarian action in this budget and the European Union’s future capacity to respond to both protracted and sudden crises: that is the crux of the matter.

Last summer, the European Commission published its proposal for the MFF 2028–2034, officially launching a phase of negotiations among the various stakeholders (the Commission, Member States, the European Parliament, etc.). This Commission proposal includes a budget of 200.3 billion euros for a new instrument called the “Global Europe Instrument,” which is intended to bring together all of the European Union’s international work.

© Maria Groenewald – VOICE Director Maria Groenewald at the high level round-table oVOICE-Global Focus in Cctober 2025, in Copenhaguen

This is already a positive sign for global solidarity. A portion of this instrument will be allocated to humanitarian action. The key request for us is that this amount for humanitarian action be enshrined in the regulations of the “Global Europe Instrument,” so that it remains fixed for the next seven years. This amount must be allocated to humanitarian action as a minimum, ensuring that the European Union retains the ability to increase it should unexpected crises arise. Then, of course, we are once again talking about principles. It is important that the European Union maintains humanitarian action and funding mechanisms that reflect humanitarian principles, while strengthening governance and transparency mechanisms in the allocation process. This has a significant impact on the general public’s perception of humanitarian action. It is also important that transparency be high.

The “Global Europe Instrument” must remain predictable, transparent, and needs-based to prevent it from being exploited or politicized. As negotiations continue in the coming months, VOICE will remain engaged on this issue. We have published several public documents and analyses to highlight what is at stake and ensure that the European Union remains the principled and significant donor it is today.

Alain Boinet. With VOICE, you recently met with Tom Fletcher, the UN Coordinator for Humanitarian Emergencies. We are familiar with the “Humanitarian Reset”—that is, the humanitarian reform triggered by declining funding. What are your thoughts on this “Humanitarian Reset”?

© Maria Groenewald – Meeting between VOICE President Pauline Chetcuti, VOICE Director Maria Groenewald, and Tom Fletcher, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordination (2025, Brussels)

Maria Groenewald. I think we all agree that reform of the humanitarian sector is necessary. We call for a more inclusive and accountable reform process, one that is informed by the operational experience of all humanitarian actors. There is a genuine complementarity in the roles of the various actors that make up the system, including international, national, and local NGOs. Everyone who is part of this humanitarian system must also be part of the reform process. This process must, of course, remain transparent to the entire humanitarian community. It is therefore important to speak of an inclusive reform and not just a “reset” of United Nations agencies.

This also raises the question of which sectors and crises risk being overlooked during prioritization discussions. While prioritization is an unfortunate necessity to ensure that the humanitarian funds remaining after drastic budget cuts go to the populations most at risk, this must not come at the expense of the quality of aid and its ability to meet the needs expressed by affected communities.

We therefore call for special attention to be paid to forgotten crises, as well as to sectors that are already frequently underfunded today, such as Protection, Mental Health and Psychosocial Support, the response to and prevention of gender-based violence, education in emergency settings, and Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights… Furthermore, it is essential to support reform processes based on diversity, the complementarity of actors, and the various funding instruments to continue responding to crises as effectively as possible.

Thirdly, my final point is, of course, the issue of localization. Supporting the localization agenda is very important for our members and for international NGOs that have been working in partnership with local and national NGOs for many years. Like us, the ‘Reset’ promotes a humanitarian system that is “as local as possible, and as international as necessary.” But concrete progress in this direction remains limited. For example, OCHA’s approach to providing greater support to national and local NGOs through “Country-based pooled funds” (CBPFs) is, in principle, a step in the right direction. In practice, we are still far from the mark, and the figures do not yet show tangible progress, largely due to the fact that accessing funds remains complex, further progress is needed in terms of governance, and the U.S. requirements applied to the funds they have allocated to the CBPFs. For our part, we have therefore begun more in-depth work on localization and have hired a new colleague who is focusing on this issue. We are launching a new working group at VOICE, to which national and Southern networks will be invited to participate and collaborate on this initiative, thanks to support from DG ECHO.

Alain Boinet. How would you assess the consequences of the decline in humanitarian funding for the localization and implementation of the nexus—that is, the process of transitioning from emergency response to rehabilitation, reconstruction, and development? What impact might this funding decline have on these essential processes?

Maria Groenewald. With the decline in humanitarian funding, the coordination between humanitarian, development, and peace efforts is more important than ever to prevent a further worsening of humanitarian needs. There are many good examples that show this so-called nexus works well in responding to crises that are lasting longer and longer, breaking the cycle of suffering, addressing immediate needs, and finding long-term solutions. We must not forget what we have learned and what works, but we must also find ways to enable development actors to step in.

It is very important to remain engaged with development actors in fragile contexts. These are not contexts where we, as humanitarian workers, are able to respond alone; we need this cooperation with development actors. Several NGOs have provided positive examples of how to work with a nexus approach while respecting humanitarian principles, because we are at a time when fragility is worsening in several regions of the world: in the Sahel, the Middle East, from the Horn of Africa to Asia.

©FAO/Aissata Lam – Women receiving their cash transfer in Mauritania, in Monguel (Wilaya of Gorgol)

There is an OECD study in which, of the 177 contexts assessed for fragility, 61 were identified as having a high or extreme level of fragility. These contexts account for 25% of the world’s population, which means we must remain committed to them. These communities face worsening crises, conflicts, forced displacement, climate shocks, weakened institutions, and shrinking civic space… This is directly linked to the increase in global humanitarian needs and the growing level of fragility in many contexts around the world.

This is why it is important for the European Union to work on this new humanitarian strategy. A document drafted by the Directorates-General for ECHO and INTPA (International Partnerships) will also be published under the title “Integrated Approach to Fragility.” It is a positive step that the Commission has entrusted this joint mission to the two Commissioners for Humanitarian Aid and Development, to ensure an integrated approach. We look forward to reading the outcome.

© Nikola Krtolica – Hulo team at the Liege airport for a flight of the EU humanitarian air bridge, observing the loading in direction of Afghanistan

Alain Boinet. Conversely, could the decline in funding also have positive consequences, particularly in terms of cost-sharing among humanitarian organizations, innovation, and even operational coordination?

Maria Groenewald. It’s clear that the reduction in funding is putting a certain amount of pressure on the sector and pushing it to move forward with reforms we’ve been discussing for over a decade. The World Humanitarian Summit took place in 2016, and many reforms—such as the “Reset” we’re discussing now—are not new ideas. They emerged a long time ago, and the current situation is forcing us to implement them more seriously. At the same time, we must not stop reminding donors that cutting funding for humanitarian action is a choice, and that increasing the state budget again to meet real needs can also be a choice.

Today, there is often talk of the needs of 87 million people that the United Nations is trying to address. Yet we know that the actual number is much higher. Not long ago, estimates put the number of people in humanitarian crisis situations at 350 million. This is an unimaginable figure—twice the combined population of Germany, France, and Belgium. How can member states see these needs and fail to act? It is possible to halt this trend and take our responsibilities seriously within the G7 and other forums. What will become of these people who remain without aid? This will not be without consequences, neither for them nor for the countries bordering displaced populations and refugees. Ultimately, there will be repercussions for us.

Alain Boinet. 64% of the public in G7 member countries believe that what is happening in the countries where these people are in danger will have repercussions in our peaceful and prosperous nations. Let us therefore examine public opinion regarding humanitarian aid and development through a recent study commissioned by the French government from IFOP (a research and polling institute) in anticipation of the G7 summit, scheduled to take place from June 15 to 17 in Evian, France. On average, it appears that 75% of the populations in these seven countries support funding for international solidarity, but 47% of them say they are poorly informed. Furthermore, 75% of these populations want to know how the funds are used, what their concrete results are, and what their purpose is, particularly for the G7 countries that provide official development assistance. Finally, 73% emphasize the need for oversight of how funds are used.

Don’t these figures suggest that humanitarian and development actors are not adequately informing the public? Isn’t this a key communication lever for strengthening ties with public opinion, both for humanitarian organizations and for the European Commission, ECHO, and Commissioner Hadja Lahbib?

© Ron Przysucha – Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken meets with Belgian Minister Hadja Lahbib in Bucharest, Romania, on November 30, 2022

© European Union/Denis Sassou Gueipeur, 2025 – Hadja Lahbib during an intervention in Chad within the frame of operations fighting against malnutrition in refugee camps

Maria Groenewald. This study really shocked me, and it’s very important that we have access to these figures. The fact that, on average, 75% of the population supports funding for international solidarity is a very positive sign that should not be underestimated. In our sector, we tend to focus on everything that’s going wrong and adopt a very pessimistic outlook—needs are rising, funding is falling… Let’s try to look at things a bit more optimistically. Seventy-five percent support is no small matter. But even though this support remains widespread, it has become more fragile amid multiple crises, polarization, and misinformation. These figures also reveal a strong expectation for transparency, concrete results, and more accessible explanations regarding humanitarian action.

The figure that shocked me the most is the 2%: this is the percentage of the public who know that the humanitarian budget accounts for less than 1% of their country’s total budget. 16% believe it is closer to 10 to 15%. I don’t think this has ever been this high. If politicians claim that funding for humanitarian aid and development must be cut “because we need to find ways to fund defense”—without providing any figures—the public may assume that “it must be a significant amount to be able to support other priorities now.” But that’s not true. But that’s not true. The money is available; the budget is very small. What’s missing is political will—and that’s the most worrying thing.

If 75% of the population supports funding for humanitarian action, how can we better communicate about our work to capture the attention of the remaining 25%? Because that’s a number we can’t afford to ignore. That is precisely why VOICE launched a social media campaign called “Humanitarian Action Works,” to concretely demonstrate what humanitarian action enables—access to water, healthcare, food, protection…—and to highlight its real impact on people’s lives. These are not abstract issues. “Nexus,” “fragility”—these are abstract concepts. But what our members do has a truly concrete impact on the daily lives of people in humanitarian crises.

We’re also very pleased because the campaign has resonated in several European media and political circles, with articles in El País and The Brussels Times, as well as among Commissioner Hadja Lahbib and MEPs Barry Andrews and Leire Pajin. Today, this is a key communication challenge and an opportunity to talk about what we do in a more positive light.

We also need to find a way to better communicate with those who are misinformed—particularly by fake news—in order to build trust in the work that NGOs do. We also publish our magazine “VOICE out loud” twice a year, featuring articles by our members. A recent issue focused on communication about our work: “The Challenge of Humanitarian Communication: Bridging Principles and Public Perception.” We also conducted another interview with Commissioner Hadja Lahbib on the subject. We decided it was time for VOICE to express its position more firmly and openly. I also published my first opinion piece in “The Brussels Times” on effective humanitarian action and five misconceptions to combat as the European Union budget negotiations approach. We are therefore trying new ways to better communicate with the public, which, given the figures from this survey, is quite misinformed.

World Humanitarian Forum in May 2016 in Istanbul

Alain Boinet. What are the main issues at stake for the upcoming European Humanitarian Forum, scheduled for this spring? What are you looking forward to most this year?

Maria Groenewald. It is worth noting that the Commission has decided not to hold a European Humanitarian Forum this year. The next one will be in 2027. However, there are other key conferences taking place this year. First, VOICE has advocated with DG ECHO for a partners’ dialogue. It is therefore organizing a “Partners’ Dialogue” on June 15. During this “Partners’ Dialogue,” we will host a session dedicated to cash assistance, which is an important aspect whose benefits—both in terms of efficiency and for dignified access to aid—must not be overlooked. Overall, we find ourselves in a situation where what we have learned regarding efficiency, the importance of certain issues, protection, education in emergencies, or gender, risks being overlooked at the international level. It is important that these various issues and priorities remain high on the donors’ agenda, so that we do not forget everything we have learned over the past 30 years in the sector.

At the same time, DG ECHO has been working on supply chain issues for the past year and a half with its partners—the United Nations, international NGOs, private sector partners, and others. How can we work together more effectively and organize supply chains in the humanitarian sector to achieve cost savings while also increasing efficiency? Next week, there will be a meeting in Rome on this issue. Work on innovative financing is also an important topic that could help identify new ways to implement interventions effectively, while respecting humanitarian principles.

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

Maria Groenewald. There is no need to choose between funding for humanitarian aid and funding for other important issues. It’s not an either/or situation. We can defend ourselves while still showing solidarity. It’s 2027; we’ve traveled to the moon, developed artificial intelligence… We can do it all: show solidarity, send our children to public schools that work, maintain a functioning healthcare system, and take care of others. Since you mention Ebola, I read an interesting article yesterday in The Guardian about Ebola in the DRC. The author says: “If your neighbor’s house is on fire, don’t expect us to stand by and watch with our arms crossed.” I believe we live in an interconnected world and that we are all neighbors, including the 350 million people living in the midst of humanitarian crises.

Maria Groenewald

With over 15 years of experience in the NGO sector, Maria Groenewald has developed strong advocacy and project management skills in both the humanitarian and development fields. After studying political science, communication science and sociology in Germany and France, Maria started her career working for Johanniter International Assistance, where she gained extensive field experience in Africa. Maria then joined Plan International Germany, where she held various positions for more than ten years, including Head of Humanitarian and Development Programs in Asia.

In the four years prior to joining VOICE, Maria was based in Brussels as Senior Resource Mobilization Manager at Plan International Germany with a focus on funding and relations with DG ECHO and DG DEVCO (now DG INTPA).

Specialized in humanitarian and development programming, nexus, activity development, resource mobilization, programming related to children’s rights, humanitarian partnership (in particular with DG ECHO) and the Grand Bargain, Maria joined the VOICE secretariat team in February 2021 as Program Coordinator. She became Acting Director in July 2021, before being appointed as the new VOICE Director in November 2021.

Discover other articles from this edition :

Humanitarian aid lost, disoriented, misguided—what twists and turns lie ahead, what future awaits?

Forum Espace Humanitaire 30 janvier 2026 Science Po Saint-Germain-en Laye. ©Stanislas Bonnet TGH.

The Forum Espace Humanitaire (FEH) brought together on 30 January 2026 at Science Po Saint-Germain-en-Laye around fifty humanitarian NGO leaders around the question “Lost in transition? Historical, civic and future-oriented perspectives on a humanitarian sector in danger”.

Having taken part in this Forum, as in the previous ones for more than 10 years, and given the gravity of the current situation for the humanitarian sector, it seems useful to share with our readers information and reflection on it while respecting the rule adopted by the FEH consisting in speaking freely without the speakers and their remarks being publicly quoted.

Regarding the title chosen by the organizers “Lost in transition”, several translations into French are possible: Lost in the period of transition, or also disoriented, even adrift, which convey well that the humanitarian sector has entered a critical phase of its history.

In Davos, Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada, declared “We are in the middle of a rupture, not in the middle of a transition” and I believe this is right. However, humanitarians must take on their transition within the geopolitical rupture of the world order and its multiple consequences, including the fall in public funding!

In this editorial, I propose first to present the 10 main questions that I retained from this Forum. This is not a report, and this overview is not exhaustive of the subject or of the debates that took place.

Then, I invite you to return to three areas of “rupture” currently under way: the multifaceted geopolitical shock, the shock to humanitarian funding, to access for aid and to international humanitarian law and, as a consequence, the ongoing project for the evolution of our review Défis Humanitaires.

A – The 10 key questions of the Forum: summary, analysis, commentary.

1. Lost, disoriented, adrift? We are moving from a period of triumphant right of interference (1991 UN Resolution 688 on Iraq and the protection of the Kurdish population), from the multiplication of Western interventions (Somalia, Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan) and those of multiple so-called UN peace operations (Iraq, Bosnia, DRC) to a questioning of the rules established since 1945 and to a brutal fall in the funding of humanitarian and development aid. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the second election of Donald Trump are the two determining causes. Faced with this “geopolitical tsunami” and the retreat of NGO capacities of more than a decade, doing nothing or “keeping a low profile” would be one of the riskiest options! If humanitarian history over the long term has always been punctuated by crises, this one is equivalent to a tsunami.

2.The “humanitarian ship in the eye of the cyclone” with devastating winds changing direction, to take up the image of one speaker. To save all or part of the ship and the crew, it will be necessary to adapt to winds, currents and waves while maintaining the final course of saving lives. “The goal is the path.” I repeat, doing nothing, “keeping a low profile” while waiting for it to pass is certainly a serious risk to avoid. Thus, for example, such NGO will lose 50% of its budget in 3 years! If NGOs financed entirely or almost entirely by individuals escape the fall in their funding, they do not escape the upheaval of the ecosystem. On the very day of the FEH, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, was alerting Member States to a risk of “imminent financial collapse”! It is the entire multilateral system that is at risk and which is de facto already being challenged by Donald Trump’s “Peace Council”. However, the humanitarian needs of 300 million human beings are still there and guide the mission of humanitarian organizations, which must adapt, reform or revolutionize themselves depending on their respective situations and choices.

The mixed Solidarités International-Veolia team around an Aquaforce 2000 in Ukraine. ©Fondation Veolia

3. Commitment and efficiency. The consensus on humanitarian aid responding to the vital needs of populations in danger once again does not prevent the debate between the priority of commitment and values and the priority of the efficiency of aid. This debate often brings out the distinction between advocacy actors and those of aid action in the field. But, frankly, the only response that seems to me to be valid is indeed that of effective commitment that optimizes every euro to save lives. Everything lies in the dynamic balance between the two approaches, between the purpose and the means of achieving it. It appears clearly that organizations that primarily prioritize action and those that mainly carry advocacy do not give the same priority to the two terms of the equation. But is advocacy not at the service of aid, and do these not need to plead their cause ?

4. Humanitarian action and civil society. Usually, the support of civil society is expressed through donations, volunteering and support for the major causes carried by humanitarian organizations. Some consider that associative freedoms are receding and are threatened, while others emphasize the weakness of the narrative of associations. What is certain is that public opinion evolves according to the environment and that today issues of security, defense, social model, national cohesion and international security particularly concern it. Just as states governed by the rule of law, in France and in Europe in particular, must face growing threats, they will have to strengthen their governance, their power and their unity in order to exist, mobilize and resist. Let us not be mistaken, the nation-state is not an NGO. Humanitarians must also rethink their place, their legitimacy and their communication in a changing, disrupted and risky environment.

5. Politicization and humanitarian principles. Some think that politicization is the necessary response to political attacks, while others consider that humanitarian principles (neutrality, impartiality, independence) constitute the best posture in all cases. What nevertheless seems certain is that the exacerbation of both political and geopolitical cleavages will directly affect humanitarian organizations. It is a dilemma and a matter of conscience. For my part, I believe that the response is twofold. On the one hand, we have a greater need for political and geopolitical analysis capacities. On the other hand, we must be and remain humanitarians. The choice is simple. Faced with a political injunction, responding with a political position will identify us as a political actor and will reduce our credibility and the humanitarian space that must bring people together broadly and place itself above partisan choices. Humanitarian action is neither right nor left and must bring together as widely as possible. This is exactly what we do in crisis areas where we act in the name of the impartiality of aid. Making a political choice is of course possible for any humanitarian, but then within a political organization. I believe that the principles of the Red Cross of Henri Dunant are more relevant than ever.

6. Decolonization, de-Westernization of aid. If aid is no one’s privilege and if proximity to affected people is the primary link of mutual aid, it is also true that funding and international aid organizations come essentially from the developed world, Western for the most part. Incidentally, humanitarians consider that their action is a duty of humanity outside of any intention to colonize anyone. These few lines will not put an end to this debate. However, I suggest two attitudes in the face of this question. The first, which has always fundamentally been mine, is to consider that where we act, outside France, we are not at home but at their home. Let us add that if universalism considers without distinction the humanity of each person, it must simultaneously respect the natural diversity of humankind, cultures, languages, religions, ways of life, ethnicities, in particular minorities, the sovereignty of these populations over their lands, which is a strong response to any attempt at colonization. Like everyone, I know that the history of humanity is more complex, that confrontation between the planet’s co-tenants is regular, but these existential reference points exist as useful and just markers. The second reflection is to consider that if the history of colonization in its diversity is also universal in time and space, we must today consider this question in the light of the ruptures under way and the risks of vassalization, including our own.

Mark Carney at the World Economic Forum ©World Economic Forum

7. Humanitarian action and geopolitics. This subject was not on the Forum’s agenda, but I raise it because I believe it is decisive. Let us return to the formula we can take up “act local, think global”, that is, the relationship between macro and micro. We humanitarians would need to understand well the major role that wars and United Nations operations have played for decades in the existence and development of humanitarian organizations, both through public funding and through private support largely fueled by the media. This observation in no way calls into question the validity of their action to save lives, but it allows us to understand that the fall in humanitarian funding from ODA coming from Member States of the European Union with governments of the right as well as of the left, even before Donald Trump’s decisions, is indeed of a geopolitical nature. The priorities of States, at least in Europe, are today more oriented towards the defense of freedom, independence, sovereignty and therefore towards security, but also towards safeguarding our social model. As Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, rightly says: “When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourselves.”

©WFP/Sayed Asif Mahmud A – A UN vehicle crosses a destroyed city in Ukraine

8. Humanitarian action, war and Ukraine. This question was also not on the FEH agenda and I add it as a continuation of the geopolitics linked to it. Apart from disasters and major pandemics, humanitarian action is mainly due to the consequences of war, most often in poor countries where populations quickly fall into precariousness and threat to their very lives. Think of Sudan, the DRC or Yemen today. Certainly, one cannot address all subjects in a single Forum. But let us not forget the reality that challenges us. According to the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross), the number of conflicts continues to increase: there were nearly 130 in 2024, twice as many as 15 years ago. Among these conflicts, around twenty have lasted for more than two decades. Thus, at the time I write these lines, more than 204 million people live in a conflict zone. Needs are increasing, resources are decreasing, what are we doing to provide aid and to influence the concerned decision-makers who are currently retreating? Back to the reality of the urgency of crises.

9. Degradation of debates. Quite rightly, one of the speakers highlighted the general degradation of debates, of analysis, of nuance. I will add the growing phenomenon of disinformation, propaganda, so-called alternative truth. We must keep this clearly in mind and ourselves practice discernment, foresight, projection and ensure benevolence among ourselves, which does not prevent either debates or disagreements. This is precisely one of the axes of reflection of the revamped Défis Humanitaires project.

10. Entirely provisional conclusion. The environment is changing radically and yet humanitarian action is more necessary than ever in a more populated world that is entering a period of strategic conflictuality that will affect many countries and populations, as in the time of the “Cold War”. We must cross the desert as well as the storm and renew ourselves to carry out the humanitarian mission, here and elsewhere, on the “Land of Men” dear to the humanist Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.

B- Focus sur la logique des ruptures en cours et le que faire.

Two major events alone summarize the rupture and are at the center of the geopolitical cyclone that is shaking and recomposing our world.

The military invasion by Russia – a member of the UN Security Council – of Ukraine, if it is a failure for everyone, signifies that a dispute can now once again be settled by the force of arms. Ukraine will enter on 22 February 2026 its 5th year of this war in Europe, which could perhaps spread to other territories of this continent without the support of the United States being certain. War is also a humanitarian issue because of its human and material consequences. Are humanitarians ready for a possible extension of war territories?

Trump at the World Economic Forum – ©White House

The second election of Donald Trump in the United States has since January 2025 caused a vast and profound earthquake in that country and throughout the world. The code of international relations under the aegis of the UN is now replaced by the law of the strongest “deal”. In the space of a decree, Donald Trump has annihilated humanitarian and development aid through the more or less equal law of trade and exchanges. To better understand, one must read the new “National Security Strategy of the United States”. Without prejudging what follows, I recall this sentence of Pierre Hassner, historian of international relations, who declared during the invasion of Iraq by the United States in March 2003 that “the complexity of the world will take its revenge”!

The abrupt and strong fall in humanitarian and development funding is of course the signal of a change of era and of priorities. Let us recall that if the weight of the United States as the world’s leading funder has a major impact, this trend is just as much the result of the Member States of the European Union and the OECD. The only good news to date is the confirmation of the humanitarian budget of the European Commission with ECHO for a 2026 budget of 1.9 billion euros and 415 million of reserve funds for emergencies. In Davos, Commissioner Hadja Lahbib advocated “new alliances” towards companies, investors, innovation actors in order to ensure new financing models. The avenues are numerous provided one has conviction and will. The main stake now lies in the next budget of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) of the European Union for the period 2028-2034. It is up to us to act!

Rising to the Humanitarian Challenges.

These ruptures will trigger many others in chain, according to the domino effect, with global consequences for humanitarian and development aid as well as for the 17 Sustainable Development Goals 2015-2030.

In this context, Défis Humanitaires has launched a project of adaptation, evolution, even change, so that its monthly online review better responds to the ruptures under way, to humanitarian imperatives and to the expectations of readers. This project is carried by its Committee of Experts, by its readers and by the ongoing debates.

This project, to which we invite you to associate yourselves, integrates the following evolutions:

A new media-press-type layout to gain impact.
Quick search functionalities for articles by author and by theme.
The publication of “briefs” on current affairs.
An evolution of the editorial line.
A strengthening of our editorial team to achieve this.

In this new issue of Défis Humanitaires, you will discover articles on the crisis in Syria, on a new innovative tool the Solis bot, an analysis of humanitarian funding of Official Development Assistance, reader testimonials and this editorial.

If these articles are useful to you, if you enjoy reading our independent and free review, you can give it the means to do better and more by making a donation today (faireundon) deductible by two thirds (66%) of your taxes thanks to the tax receipt that we will send you.

I warmly thank you for your support, which supports our volunteer work to better inform you. Thank you.

Alain Boinet.

Share :

Share :