Interview of Véronique Andrieux, General Director of WWF France

Sécheresse en Ethiopie après 3 saisons des pluies manquées. ©EU/ECHO/Anouk Delafortrie (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Alain Boinet: We are happy to welcome Véronique Andrieux, the general director of WWF France. The WWF or WorldWide Fund for nature is an international non-governmental organisation created in 1961 working for the protection of the environment and sustainable development. To start of the interview, can you tell us the main priorities of WWF?

Véronique Andrieux: Our mission is threefold. The first is to warn about the climate and biodiversity crisis with the help of experts and through particularly salient reports, notably the “Living Planet” report. The second area is the protection and restoration of the living world, ecosystems and those who depend on them, particularly wildlife, but also local communities with sustainable management of natural resources.  These are field projects, whether in Metropolitan France, in the overseas departments or in what are known as biodiversity hot spots such as the Congo Basin, the Mekong River, or Indonesia, Brazil and Madagascar.  Finally, the third axis is transformation: acting on systemic transformations that are the structural causes of ecosystem losses and erosion of life. In this area, we work with the government, local authorities to change public policies, but also with companies and other private actors in the financial sector to transform their business plans.

AB: You previously held various position in humanitarian and development organisation. In what ways, based on your experience, do you see links between humanitarian, environmental and developmental work?

V.A.: I have been doing this work for about twenty-five years and witnessed the impacts of climate change on local people, especially when I went to the field. For example, in the Andes, more than 20 years ago, we were already seeing climate disruption on ocean currents and what it meant for the rainy season and crops. In Yemen and the Sahel, climate change is causing more frequent and longer droughts and a constant rise in temperatures which make some areas uninhabitable and/or can be a factor in tensions and conflicts for natural resources. Another example is the extractive industries, in Latin America which pollute the soil and water through their massive use of chemicals. In French Guyana, water pollution with mercury (banned by the Minalata Convention) leads to diseases in local communities.  These are just few examples of unsustainable resource management that shows that putting the environment at the centre of human development programmes, and vice-versa, is the only suitable solution.

That is why, the triple-nexus climate-biodiversity-human development is at the heart of our actions at WWF, through adaptation and mitigation measures such as nature-based solution (protect ecosystems to address climate change, food insecurity, water supply…). In the face of the climate and biodiversity crisis and its devastating effects on human development and accelerating inequalities, it is essential to break out of silos and fragmented approaches. This dichotomy between development and environment cannot hold, since the environment is the essential foundation for human development. Studies show that 80% of the SDGs are threatened by the climate crisis.

A.B.:  As you mentioned climate change, what action is WWF taking to tackle it? Are we in an emergency?

V.A.: Totally! We used to tell ourselves that issues linked to climate change and the deterioration of biodiversity were elsewhere: the situation in the Amazon is terrible but it is far from us, extreme temperatures in Pakistan and the Sahel, the rise of waters in various region is terrible, but again, it is far from us. Today, we can no longer ignore the problem or push it away, the climate issue is now and here! This is a slow onset crisis.

At the moment, in France, we are experiencing violent wildfires, heat waves, hail, and drought which clearly show that are in an emergency situation. For this reason, we not only need to reduce the factors that could cause those crises, but also act on adapting and preventing those situations. In some cases, the agenda is set around the loss and damage as our adaptation capabilities are limited and it becomes to late to save the situation.

At WWF, we propose solutions at the systemic and sectoral levels. There is a major problem of climate and biodiversity coherence in public policies. For example, France funds more subsidies for fossil fuels than for renewable energies. Continuing to direct public money towards climate-damaging subsidies rather than towards sustainable economic activities locks us into a carbon-based model and diverts resources that are essential for the transition. There is therefore a need to act on these systemic issues. WWF has proposed a “climate and biodiversity pass”, which would screen public policies and state budgets to ensure their compatibility with France’s and the European Union’s climate and biodiversity commitments. In addition, we propose sectoral measures for France in the areas of transport, agriculture, housing and energy. It is the entire software and matrix of production and consumption that must be radically and profoundly revised.

Sécheresse en Ethiopie a cause du phénomène El Nino. ©EU/ECHO/Anouk Delafortrie (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

A.B.:  The war in Ukraine completely shook the energy sector (hydrocarbons, gas) with the reopening of coal-fired power stations and with the revival of nuclear power as the only stable alternative. How do you analyse this situation and how to tackle it?

V.A.: For us, Ukraine has accelerated certain issues and could be a window of opportunity for certain fundamental transformations both in terms of energy and the food system.

As far as energy is concerned, and beyond the emergency measures that are absolutely necessary, it will be necessary to focus on the threefold approach: renewable energies, energy efficiency and sobriety. The government is working on an energy sobriety action plan. This is a good thing, as we will have to consume less (and not just this winter, but over the long term). At the same time, one of the major levers of energy efficiency should be tackled: a broad plan for the energy renovation of buildings (complete renovation of 700,000 homes/year in France). We must not forget that more than 12 million French people are in a situation of energy insecurity and that it is necessary to support them. In terms of renewable energies, France is the only European member state not to meet its commitments (19% vs. 23% target in 2020). In the framework of RePowerEU (the European Commission’s plan to make the European Union independent of Russian fossil fuels), some projects that are currently on hold could be unblocked. However, care must be taken not to forget the biodiversity and social criteria. For example, wind turbines should not be placed in Natura 2000 areas or in bird nesting or migration areas.

Regarding the food system, the main driver is to review our diet and reduce the consumption of animal proteins. We eat twice as much animal protein as recommended by the health authorities. We recommend replacing it with more vegetable proteins. 2/3 of the cereals consumed in Europe go into livestock feed and only 17% for human consumption; 60% of the land is used for animal feed production (with a low efficiency or conversion factor for some sectors). The hierarchy of land use must be reviewed and priority given to food production for the population.

We are faced with a contradiction when the European Union claims to be a food-producing power when in reality it has relocated a significant part of its ecological footprint to third countries and is the second largest importer of deforestation behind China. Products resulting from deforestation or the conversion of ecosystems are found in our food (indirectly, when the meat we eat has been fed with Brazilian soya from deforestation, for example) and in agrofuels. This is why WWF is pushing for binding legislation to ban the marketing of products derived from deforestation or ecosystem conversion in Europe.

A.B.: Another area on which the WWF is very committed is that of the protection of rivers. Faced with the consequences of climate change and the increase in water pollution due in particular to demographics but also to the development of lifestyles, what initiatives are you taking?

V.A.: On this question, we work on two complementary approaches: biodiversity and ecological footprint.  On the biodiversity side, WWF created different initiatives such as “Free Flowing Rivers” for the renaturiation of risers and the dismantling of infrastructures including micro and small dams that ultimately provide very little energy, fragment rivers and prevent species from migrating. There is also work to restore wetlands, which act as a buffer areas in the event of flooding, thus protecting local communities. In France, WWF is working in Camargue and the Brenne region for years now.

As far as the ecological footprint is concerned, our societies have an extremely intensive agricultural model that consumes freshwater (agriculture uses 70% of the world’s available freshwater, mainly for irrigation). This is why, in view of the successive years of drought and the historic drought in France this year, it is crucial to move towards a much less water-intensive and therefore more sustainable agricultural model. Today, much of the water is used to irrigate cereals, the vast majority of which will be used to feed livestock, while populations and biodiversity are short of water. The position of livestock feed in land and water use will have to be reviewed, and priority given to uses and production for human populations.

Aide humanitaire de l’Union Européenne en Amérique Centrale suite au inondations dues aux ouragans ETA and IOTA. © Alianza por la Solidaridad, 2020 (CC BY-ND 2.0)

A.B.: The Ukrainian war could lead to, using Antonio Guterres’s words, a “hurricane of hunger”. Isn’t it urgent, particularly in the Middle East and Africa, to set up a global plan?

V.A.: I don’t think there is one action that will solve the problem but rather a range of actions. Emergency measures such as those carried out by the WFP are crucial. In the medium/long term, we need to act on diets by reducing our consumption of animal proteins, reduce food waste, stop deforestation practices, return to more resilient endemic crops, and develop agroecology (increase the organic area, less pesticides and nitrogen fertilisers, crop diversification, etc.). With our monoculture system, we have destroyed the diversification of plants that exists in the world and that is absolutely necessary for agricultural resilience and sovereignty. The aim is therefore to reduce the dependence of African and Middle Eastern countries on Europe and to create a foundation of resilience in these countries. Rather than importing wheat, promote local and sustainable production of cassava, sorghum and millet flour – endemic crops, adapted to the environment and more resilient to water stress – as several African countries are already doing in response to the crisis. Investing in this sovereignty also means restoring the millions of hectares of degraded land.

A.B.: The Earth now has eight billion human beings and by 2050 the African population will have grown from 1.1 billion to 2.1 billion. How can we meet these demographic needs, dare we speak of a demographic explosion that could have an impact on the world situation, while acknowledging that the continent requires phenomenal development needs?

V.A.: This issue touches on the inequalities that arise from this climate crisis. Today, Africa is the continent that emits the least greenhouse gases and that suffers the greatest effects (along with parts of Asia) of climate change. We can therefore see inequalities between the different regions of the world on this subject. But beyond the inequalities between regions of the world, there is also the question of inequalities between types of population. If we take for example the global elites, on a planetary scale that is, their consumption patterns on 1% of the population represents 20% of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions since 1990. On the other hand, if we take 50% of the poorest population, they are only responsible for 16% of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions. So it is not just a demographic issue, it is above all a question of consumption patterns that must be rebalanced. There is a clear correlation between the level of wealth and the level of emissions. The question then is how can we ensure that the global elites make their lifestyles more sober? From my point of view, it’s more a question of how to ensure that these global elites, wherever they are, have a more responsible way of living and consuming, and that their roles and responsibilities at the societal level are also highlighted. And so in reality it’s not the population increase in Africa that is going to increase greenhouse gas emissions on its own. Studies show that the millions of people who have been lifted out of extreme poverty in recent decades have had little impact on the increase in GHG emissions (around 1%). A final question is how to make a strong Human Development Index compatible with a low carbon footprint, as is the case in Africa. I think that the richest countries have a responsibility to reduce the pressures they have on biodiversity hotspots and on the relocation of production. They must establish technology transfers in poor countries to avoid using fossil fuels when renewable energies are already available. There is also accountability to be made on financial actors, for the green taxonomy (the European Union’s classification of economic activities that are sustainable and compatible with the ecological transition) to be more respected and probably increased in a few years. Public and private financial institutions must also align their investment portfolios with the green taxonomy.

Finally, there is a need to address the issue of economic indicators: focusing on GDP as the largely dominant metric perpetuates the blind spot of nature’s value, leading to the ecological crisis we find ourselves in. It is essential to complement the inadequacy of GDP and other economic growth indicators with an ecological footprint indicator, such as the Day of Overshoot, which measures the carbon footprint, forests, agriculture, fisheries, etc. of human activity in global hectares.

Discussion entre Stephanie Mehta, Peter Sands, Bill Gates, Francis de Souza, Helen E. Clark, Paul Kagame à Davos en mai 2022. @Paul Kagame (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

A.B.: You have previously held several leadership positions in both humanitarian and environmental organisation. What key lessons and advice on governance and strategy can you draw from your experience?

V.A.: I would say that there is above all a direction to follow, and that we must not disperse ourselves. We must not lose the soul of the field and I personally think that one of the big risks of the different NGOs is bureaucratisation. When procedures multiply and become more sophisticated, this can become a brake on action on the ground, the localisation of aid and innovation.

I think it is important to preserve our DNA as a civil society, as activists, as social and environmental justice activists. We have the legitimacy of years of quality work in the most complex fields, tangible achievements and results, solid technical expertise, and action in the general interest. Our strength lies in our science-based and evidence-based knowledge over time. Focus on the quality of our programmes, to achieve impact and make a difference. We must rely on diversity, a plurality of views and backgrounds, agility, risk-taking and innovation to better navigate the more volatile, disruptive and uncertain contexts that now constitute our daily lives.

Finally, we need to facilitate the emergence of new types of leadership, based on values such as courage, care, self-awareness, humility, inclusion and power-sharing — in my view, more in tune with the aspirations of our sector and our time.

Alain Boinet: To end this interview, would you like to add anything?

Véronique Andrieux: We are becoming aware that the era of the “open bar” of natural resources is over. We will have to adapt very quickly to the era of scarcity, which is galloping in and becoming the new normal. Sobriety applies to energy, but also to water, forests, fisheries, and natural resources as a whole. This is the meaning of the Day of Exceeding which this year arrived on July 28th for the world and on May 5th for France. By increasing the ecological deficit every year for the past 50 years, we are putting ourselves in danger. It is urgent to integrate ecological footprint markers into the management of the country, the economy and agriculture.


Further resources:

Webite WWF France 


Biographie de Véronique Andrieux

Véronique Andrieux is a specialist in international development.
She holds a Master’s degree in Business Administration from ESADE in Barcelona and postgraduate degrees in Development from the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) in Paris and in Public Policy from the School of African and Oriental Studies (SOAS) at the University of London. She was Regional Director for South America and the Caribbean and West Africa at Oxfam. Previously she was Senior Adviser on Development Policy at the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was also Senior Adviser at the Club de Madrid. She has had field responsibilities in Latin America, West and Central Africa and the Mediterranean. She has led several evaluation and planning processes and represented the Spanish government in various multilateral working groups on official development assistance. She then joined Action Against Hunger in 2016 as Executive Director. She has written various publications on international development, including: “Better Aid: A necessary condition for development”, “Contributions for a European Development Policy under the Spanish EU Presidency” and “Policy Coherence: an urgent agenda for Development”. Véronique has been Director General of WWF France since August 2019. The World Wide Fund for Nature, the world’s leading environmental protection organisation, has been working for 50 years to preserve natural environments and the most threatened animal and plant species, by striving to mobilise all stakeholders in society.


The environment is also a humanitarian issue.

Reducing the negative environmental impact of humanitarian interventions in the areas of Water, Hygiene and Sanitation: the example of Solidarités International’s strategic sanitation program.

On September 21, 2020, Aude Lazzarini, head of the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene division at Solidarités International (SI) presented how SI takes into account and integrates environmental issues in its operations. This presentation took place during a meeting of the Groupe de Réflexion Urgence Post-Urgence (GRUPC), hosted by Médecins du Monde, in its Parisian headquarters.

The GRUPC was created in 2009. It is an informal space for information, reflection and exchange between humanitarian leaders, experts, representatives of foundations and public authorities. The first presidents of the GRUPC were Benoît Miribel, Anne Héry, and then Philippe Ryfman. This group is now chaired by Francis Chahron.

Aude Lazzarini spoke at a meeting questioning the environmental impact of humanitarian action.

Taking the environment into account, an issue at the heart of Solidarités International’s 2020-2025 program priorities

In recent decades, the environment has been under constant and increasing anthropogenic pressure: global warming, deforestation, soil depletion, disappearance of arable land, decrease and degradation of water resources, etc. The environment is under constant and increasing pressure. These phenomena contribute to the social and economic precariousness of the most vulnerable populations, weakening their resilience to shocks and stresses. At the same time, the recurrence of natural disasters continues to increase both in frequency and intensity.

Solidarités International – a confirmed humanitarian actor – has set itself the mission of providing assistance as quickly and effectively as possible to populations that are victims of conflicts, epidemics and natural disasters. The NGO responds to their vital needs and accompanies them until they regain the means of subsistence and autonomy to face future challenges with dignity.

As such, Solidarités International is convinced that the environmental issue must be of major importance to the humanitarian community. Moreover its interventions are often concentrated in fragile and/or degraded contexts, suffering from a structural deficit (in terms of legislative framework, public services, rational management of resources etc.), and particularly vulnerable to climatic hazards. Humanitarian actors thus have a duty to set an example and to limit/mitigate the impact of their interventions on the environment.

However, taking environmental issues into account during humanitarian operations is relatively complex. Humanitarian actors often operate in rather constraining areas due to restricted access to the field and to data on the situation and the environment of intervention (population, customs, hydrogeology, topography, etc.), limited private sector supply, degraded functioning of public institutions, high exposure to climatic hazards, etc. Moreover, they often act in emergency situations requiring a rapid response and limiting, or even not allowing, the realization of studies and investigations over a long period of time. In these contexts, the preparation and anticipation of environmental issues then become essential.

For the past two years, Solidarités International has been carrying out an in-depth strategic review of its operating methods. The NGO has integrated the consideration of the environment at the heart of its programmatic strategy, which has the overall objective of supporting the most vulnerable people affected by crises to better cope with shocks and pursue their future prospects.

SI finalized its environmental policy in 2020. It reflects the importance given to the sustainability of its interventions. The framework document that accompanies its implementation will be added to it by the end of the year.

This positioning document recognizes the importance of taking the environment into account when designing and implementing interventions, as well as in the logistical processes that accompany them. SI is committed to integrating the challenges of environmental awareness at the following 3 levels:

  • Headquarters level: energy efficiency, waste sorting, responsible purchasing of goods and services, rationalization of international business travel, etc.
  • Field operations: supply chain (responsible purchasing of goods and services/transportation/storage), vehicle fleet, energy management, waste recycling, etc.
  • Programs (design, implementation and monitoring): environmental risk analysis, protection and sustainable management of natural resources, prevention and appropriate management of waste, limitation of negative effects on the environment, containment of health risks, etc.
Emptyers in action in a latrine in a refugee camp in Bangladesh.®Solidarités International

Concretely, during its interventions, SI is committed to considering environmental issues from two perspectives:

  • The reduction of the negative environmental impacts of interventions and office operations;
  • Strengthening the sustainability of its interventions, by reducing the exposure and vulnerability of populations and systems to climatic hazards and the degradation and/or depletion of natural resources, through the implementation of adaptation and mitigation measures.

The operational application of its commitments through sector strategies for 2020-2025

The “programmatic” operationalization of SI environmental policy is achieved through its technical programmatic strategies, or sectoral strategies. To date, the “Water, Sanitation and Hygiene” and “Food Safety and Livelihoods” strategies have been completed and constitute the first SI sector strategies.

The WASH 2020-2025 strategy is ambitious and places public health, well-being and dignity of the affected populations at the center of its interventions. It is in line with the global logic of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and aims to achieve, in a degraded context, SDGs 3 and 6 which target, respectively, health and well-being and universal access to drinking water and sanitation by 2030. This WASH sector strategy targets 3 priority programmatic axes, for which Solidarités International aims to improve practices and develop expertise, knowledge and innovations.

Strengthening the fight against epidemics :

This will implies strengthening multisectoral coordination and increasing the number of joint actions and initiatives between the EAH and Health sectors. It includes consolidating local epidemiological surveillance systems – including community and environmental surveillance -, improving the predictability of epidemics and the effectiveness of rapid responses, and strengthening drinking water, sanitation and hygiene services in treatment centers and urban “hotspots” for endemic diseases.

Strengthening the quality of WASH interventions in the shock absorption phase :

During this first phase of emergency response, the objective is to better consider the “do not harm” principle. This is done by systematizing (i) the implementation of protective measures against all forms of violence and attacks on the well-being and dignity of the affected populations, (ii) by containing health risks as much as possible and (iii) by minimizing negative environmental impacts. On this last point, SI has prioritized – among other things – better preservation and management of water resources for the coming period. The objective is, for example, to put in place, as soon as the various players arrive in the field, sufficient coordination and monitoring of the water resources used. When this is not done, it can lead to overexploitation of resources, as it was the case in Maiduguri in Nigeria. The exploitation of the artesian aquifer – in order to meet the high demand generated by the massive influx of IDPs (internally displaced people) – has led to a significant drop in the static level of the aquifer. The absence of specific monitoring limited the capacity to implement mitigation measures in time.

Another common problem concerns sanitation. In the early stages of crisis response, sanitation services are often not considered as a full-fledged sector comprising several steps: excreta collection, transport, treatment and disposal. Humanitarian action tends to focus on the construction of latrines – to collect excreta and contain health risks – while “forgetting” the actions of emptying and treating sludge. Sludge is usually handled by the informal private sector. However, the informal private sector does not always take into account the environment and the negative impacts that its actions can have on it. It sometimes deposits excreta in nature, thereby exposing populations to health risks and the environment to heavy pollution.

This practice – of not taking into account the entire sanitation chain in the first phase of an emergency – is quite common in the humanitarian sector given the difficulty of setting up effective treatment systems. The design, dimensioning and commissioning of these systems requires expertise, reflection, studies and training – activities that take place in a temporality quite different from the urgency of humanitarian action. The question is therefore the following: how to do well and quickly activities involving opposite temporalities, all in a degraded context? As we will see below, SI has developed a specific strategic sub-program to address these issues.

Strengthening public WASH services in degraded contexts :

This last programmatic priority involves supporting local authorities in maintaining and/or strengthening their essential WASH public services in degraded, crisis-affected areas, where pressure on these services is increased due to a massive influx of forcibly displaced persons (IDPs and refugees) or to the outbreak of an epidemic. It is happening, for example, in northern Burkina Faso, where large numbers of refugees are arriving in urban centers. This influx of people adds strong pressure on an already fragile and degraded drinking water supply service. Demand is becoming too great in relation to supply and is further weakening an already obsolete service. In this context, integrated water resource management is a key component of environmental awareness. It is necessary to systematize good practices to guarantee optimal performance of infrastructures and rational use of the resource and thus ensure that there is no overexploitation of the groundwater, in a logic of anticipation of the future recovery of the area.

Intervention logic and principles of intervention EAH of SI ®Solidarités International

The strategic sub-programme on sanitation – facilitating the development of complete value chains

SI develops thematic strategic programs in order to propose concrete solutions to problems encountered in the field and thus “operationalize” the organization’s positioning and political will.

The objective of the specific “Sanitation” program is as follows: knowing that often leaves behind the treatment of sewage sludge in emergency situations, SI wishes to actively support the systematization of the development of complete sanitation systems in humanitarian contexts.

Manual transport of sewage sludge, Sittwe, Myanmar. 2020 ®Marine Ricau / Solidarités International
Drying of sewage sludge, Sittwe, Myanmar. 2020 ®Marine Ricau / Solidarités International

To do so, SI has developed a specific program for sanitation in crisis context. It aims to support the design and implementation of effective and sustainable sludge treatment solutions in long-term crisis contexts (> one year), while proposing temporary solutions for emergency response. The latter make it possible to confine health risks while waiting for sustainable sludge treatment solutions to be put into service.

The concrete problem in the field is the duration of the feasibility studies required for the design and dimensioning of treatment centers, as well as the construction and commissioning times. Generally, these initial actions can take up to a year. The question is therefore what temporary solutions can be implemented, pending the installation and commissioning of sustainable technologies.

SI seeks to develop, with partners such as the Veolia Foundation or Tufts University, transitional responses to limit health risks and negative environmental impacts. These are innovative solutions that are generally costly in terms of operating costs, but whose investment costs are fairly low. They make it possible to contain the risk before setting up more permanent structures, which have high investment costs but limited operating costs.

Two temporary solutions to limit environmental risk: bio-additives and sludge sanitization

SI will soon start two pilot tests in partnership with the Véolia Foundation. The first one on bio-additives, which are micro-organisms that degrade faecal matter. They would make it possible to limit the volume of sludge and have a greater time interval between each emptying. Less sludge would therefore be produced and the risk for the environment and health would be reduced.

The second research focuses on a solution developed by the Fondation Véolia – the SANIFORCES – with which SI would be associated for the field tests. These are modular systems that would allow sludge to be hygienized by diverting the methanization process – thus achieving a 99.9% reduction in pathogens, which would allow the sludge to be disposed of in nature without spreading a health hazard. A rigorous selection of disposal sites would be associated with this process in order to also limit environmental risks, particularly the pollution of water resources.

These two solutions are temporary, but SI is also seeking to identify sustainable solutions adapted to long-term crises. For this purpose, SI has developed a website, Octopus (see our article on this collaborative platform here), which promotes experience sharing and disseminates feedback on treatment solutions implemented in the main theaters of humanitarian action. The objective is thus to draw up an exhaustive picture of all sludge treatment processes that exist in the humanitarian context. The solutions are described and their advantages and disadvantages are detailed in order to help practitioners choose the most appropriate solution for their field.

Sludge treatment plant, Sittwe, Myanmar. 2020 ®Marine Ricau / Solidarités International
Sludge treatment plant, Sittwe, Myanmar. 2020 ®Marine Ricau / Solidarités International

At the same time, Solidarités International is professionalizing and increasing the efficiency of its existing sludge treatment plants. In Myanmar, for example, SI – in partnership with the Veolia Foundation – is improving the quality of its sludge treatment plant (find our article on this laboratory in Myanmar here). The NGO also wishes to conduct a thesis project to explore ways in which the outputs of this process could be used for agricultural reuse (compost and irrigation water).

Taking the environment into account is thus a key issue at Solidarités International. It is integrated into SI‘s development strategies because the populations supported by the NGO are often the most vulnerable to climatic hazards. For ethical and exemplary reasons, Solidarités International therefore considers it essential to take into account the environmental impact of its programs.

Aude Lazzarini

Water, Hygiene and Sanitation Manager

Operations Department Program Assistant, Solidarités International

DOAP Contact: Program Director, Anne-Lise Lavaur:

Questions & Answers

Following Aude Lazzarini’s intervention, participants were able to ask questions on and comment the presentation. The issue of access to expertise was raised and Aude was able to present the different levers put in place at SI to strengthen partnerships in a “multi-actor” logic. Participants also discussed the role of innovation and the obstacles to the development of innovative techniques. These difficulties are both financial and linked to a positioning of the sector that is rather risk averse, although risk is necessary for innovation.

Comment: I would like to highlight a point of difficulty in Solidarités International approach, which is the time, skills and cost that all these activities entail. This is a real problem when you have little equity capital and an additional challenge – to do better with limited resources. What Aude and her team have developed is interesting because they have worked with operational or academic actors who bring other essential skills. The “multi-actor” approach is important because it allows us to find solutions that we cannot afford on our own, either financially or scientifically.

Question: Faced with the question of lack of means, my question is: are there any working groups, development groups to reflect on these overall questions that you have presented? At SI, have you met with other NGOs to collectively think about these questions?

Aude Lazzarini: Yes, indeed, we are part of working groups on these questions. For example, on a global scale, we are very active in the Global Wash Cluster, which is a coordinating body for humanitarian action. We are part of a specific working group on sanitation and we have a lot of exchanges with other NGOs, Oxfam, for example, which has also prioritized sanitation for the coming years. Our site, Octopus, has just been put online on the GWC website.

At the national level, we are mainly involved in working groups on access to WASH services in emergency situations with the PFE group (French Water Partnership). Here too, we are working on multi-actors. The difficulty is that there are many issues and it is difficult to address them all.

Finally, our active participation in Groupe URD’s Humanitarian Environment Network has allowed us to mature our thinking on issues related to taking the environment into account, in terms of programm and logistics, with other humanitarian actors operating in the field and to advance our positioning.

One of the limits we encounter at SI is access to expertise. WASH responses require the mobilization of a wide range of skills that cannot always be fully internalized within NGOs, and this is essential if we want to (better) take the environment into account (among other things). This is one of the reasons why we have developed a lot of multi-stakeholder involvement, through consortiums and partnerships. We also have many projects underway – in conjunction with our main technical sponsors (Aquassistance, Fondation Véolia, ESF, Renewgies, etc.) – to set up hotlines to optimize the technical support provided to teams in the field.

The other difficulty, which is one of the main limitations for SI, is access to the financial counters that enable innovation to be financed. To innovate, we have to take risks, test solutions, define whether they work or not. But we are in an environment that, from a technical point of view, is somewhat risk-averse. We tend to want things to work the first time around, we often prefer conventional approaches, etc. All this is a limit to questioning our practices and improving them. When, in addition, the organization has little equity, as is the case with SI, it is all the more challenging.

Comment: I would like to add a comment about the environmental impact of our activities. If we want to work on these issues, the technologies we develop must also be robust, appropriate and not generate significant environmental impacts. We have to think about a logic of technology, of response that integrates, from its conception, this problem. We must not throw ourselves into new technological solutions which, if we look at them according to their overall ecological balance sheet, will have other effects, some of which will be harmful to the environment.

Question: You brought up the subject of doing things quickly and well, when we barely have the time to do them well. The question of global vision in anticipation of crises is a very interesting subject. Are the resources you have developed freely accessible?

A.L.: Yes, of course. In the WASH strategy of Solidarités International, there are thematic axes, but also specific institutional objectives. For water, sanitation and hygiene, the first intention is to strengthen the fight against epidemics and to provide efficient and adapted WASH services; the second is to innovate and develop access to expertise. The third intention, which answers your question, is advocacy and knowledge sharing. We want to share the results of all the research that is being undertaken and thus contribute to the production of knowledge within the sector and disseminate it widely. For example, for research on bio-additives, we are working with an academic partner and we will arbitrate whether this technology works or not. If it doesn’t work, we will disseminate the fact that it was a failure. We can close the debate and try to find other solutions. The idea is always to serve the sector and humanitarian action.

Question: Have you set up partnerships with fundamental research institutes?

A.L.: Yes, absolutely. We have a partnership with Tufts University, which specializes in WASH issues in humanitarian contexts. We have also just signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Johns Hopkins University for all operational research on cholera responses. There is a lot of empirical work being done in the field of WASH. The idea is to question these approaches and see if we can gain efficiency. For example, during a cholera epidemic, homes are systematically disinfected within a radius of 50 to 100 meters. We need to ask ourselves why we do this, what is the impact of this action and whether there are other more adequate practices.

Who is Aude Lazzarini?

Aude Lazzarini BWAude Lazzarini is an engineer in industrial environmental engineering, specializing in urban hydraulics. After an 18-month experience with the largest French public water utility, Aude worked for 13 years as project manager and technical expert on drinking water and sanitation access projects. She has thus developed strong technical (APS/APD/hydraulic modelling) and institutional skills in setting up and optimising public drinking water and sanitation services (organisational and institutional diagnostics, Public-Private Partnerships and Public Service Delegation contracts, setting up Output-Based Aid type financing mechanisms, training and capacity building, drafting of procedure manuals, etc.), as well as in the field of social engineering (household surveys, analysis of solvent demand, IEC and social intermediation activities).

Aude has also contributed to the elaboration of several national sectoral policy documents and strategies. Since 2018, she has been in charge of the Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene unit at Solidarités International, and has specialized in the issues of access to WASH services in degraded contexts.

Aude therefore has a solid experience of the technical, economic, social and institutional issues specific to the water and sanitation sector in low and middle income countries and fragile contexts. You can find her on LinkedIn, here.