A plea in favour of European humanitarian aid

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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?

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.

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 :

• Storm warning – Alain Boinet
• The Sahel region, extensions Southward and New emerging Jihadist Fronts : A Deep Dive into the W-Arly-Pendjari Complex – Salomée Languille
• How vases break – Cyprien Fabre
• Donating as an Antiviral: Philanthropy Put to the Test in an Increasingly Brutal World – Antoine Vaccaro