Tag: Grand Bargain

The European Union, ECHO and Humanitarian Action

Interview with Pauline Chetcutti, President of VOICE.

Pauline Chetcuti speaking at the press conference on the sidelines of the 2025 European Humanitarian Forum. © DG ECHO

Alain Boinet: At the end of July, the consolidated appeal stood at 45.84 billion dollars. At that date, only 7.64 billion dollars had been raised, which is about 40% less than at the same time last year! As a result, the United Nations announced a drastic reduction of their plan, leading to hyper-prioritization targeting only 114 million people at risk out of the 310 million identified, with a budget of 29 billion dollars and no guarantee of achieving it. What do you think?

Pauline Chetcuti:

The situation is concerning: 40% less than last year and only 17% of the requested amount actually raised. The consequences will be dramatic for communities in need of assistance.

This hyper-prioritization will have very heavy effects. On the one hand, tens of millions of people will be left without lifesaving aid, with the risk of tipping into increased precarity. On the other hand, it risks creating new emergencies that could have been avoided if these populations had been taken into account.

It also raises a moral and ethical question: how can we “sort” lives this way?

For years, work has been done on the triple nexus, on resilience and prevention—everything that goes beyond pure emergency response. Yet with this hyper-prioritization we risk a return to a solely emergency-driven logic, which is more costly and generates imbalances between populations.This movement thus contributes to discrediting the humanitarian sector by leaving populations aside, in a context where the trust of both beneficiaries and donors is already deeply weakened.

The Secretary-General António Guterres delivers the opening address of the General Debate of the eightieth session of the General Assembly. © United Nations

Alain Boinet: In a context of funding crisis and weakened leadership of the United Nations, how should we approach the UN 80 structural reform project launched by the Secretary-General on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the UN and, within this framework, the specific Humanitarian Reset which concerns, in one way or another, all humanitarian actors?

Pauline Chetchuti:

Obviously, budget cuts make reform necessary, even if this is not new since the UN has been reforming in cycles for several years. Today, we are in a context of crisis where budgets are cut, and the reorganization proposed by UN 80 as well as the Humanitarian Reset are being undertaken in direct response to this situation.

The UN 80 project is a reorganization of UN entities with better coordination between the peace–development–human rights pillars, as well as a simplification of mandates, with potentially large UN agencies grouped together.

This reform therefore responds to a double urgency: the decline in funding and the loss of credibility of multilateralism.

The Humanitarian Reset is part of this logic, aiming for simplification, efficiency and “cost-effectiveness” of the sector. It seeks to refocus funding as close as possible to countries, notably via OCHA’s country-based pooled funds, and it also emphasizes localization. In principle, localization is not ruled out, but the way it will be implemented raises questions. At VOICE, we are working precisely on these points, notably on the importance of maintaining a diversity of instruments and actors to respond to complex and diverse contexts.

However, we must avoid reducing everything to technical aspects. The success of these reforms will also depend on the political will of donors and the commitment of States. It is up to us—NGOs and networks—to document the concrete consequences of the Reset for organizations and to remind everyone of our fundamental and complementary role in the humanitarian ecosystem. NGOs bring essential diversity, being closest to contexts and with a nuanced understanding of population needs. It is therefore crucial to ensure that all humanitarian actors are taken into account in the Reset led by Tom Fletcher.

Finally, the achievements of the reforms undertaken since the World Humanitarian Summit and the Grand Bargain must be preserved and, above all, prioritized: flexible funding, localization, risk sharing and lighter reporting requirements. We cannot afford to go backwards.

Tom Fletcher, during a press conference in Geneva, on December 3, 2024. © UNOCHA

Alain Boinet: Governments representing various political leanings—within the European Union and OECD members in particular, not to mention the United States—are significantly reducing their humanitarian and development aid. How can we understand these decisions, what are the possible consequences, and what can and should humanitarian actors do?

Pauline Chetcuti:

The humanitarian crisis is severe at present, accentuated by U.S. cuts with the end of USAID, but it is also a long-term trend over recent years. The reasons are multiple, though some common threads emerge: national retrenchment, refocusing on domestic priorities, fiscal austerity, inflation, public debt. At the same time, we see rising military expenditures and declining spending on international cooperation.

There is also donor fatigue and distrust toward aid after Covid, Ukraine, etc. Moreover, it is becoming very difficult for States to continue defending and justifying these investments. Indeed, it is complicated for them to maintain their commitment when they cannot show immediate and tangible results, in a logic of prioritizing responses to the internal needs of their own populations.

Furthermore, we have weakened leadership at the United Nations, despite a huge increase in the services it provides. There is truly a loss of momentum and legitimacy of multilateral institutions, which is obviously driven by certain great powers (China, the United States, etc.) that are changing the context we operate in. And this is what is driving today’s budget cuts.

The direct consequences will be particularly heavy for communities already weakened by conflicts, climate shocks or economic inequalities. These populations will be doubly affected by the decline in funding, the reduction in international cooperation and the scaling back of support. It is a vicious circle: the less we fund the aid system and the multilateral system, the less visible the impact of this system is for the most vulnerable. Consequently, there is disengagement from institutions that weakens their effectiveness and legitimacy, which then, in turn, is used to justify reduced engagement and investment in these very institutions.

For us as NGOs, as members of civil society and as a network representing a large number of organizations, we must resist and reaffirm the impact of international cooperation and, more specifically, of humanitarian aid. We must demonstrate its concrete impact for the most vulnerable populations, build a strong narrative toward institutions, donors, but also the general public.

European polls still show significant public support for humanitarian aid, though not always reflected in the policies of Member States. That is why it is essential to maintain a strong voice, to continue demonstrating the positive impact of humanitarian aid and to highlight partnerships with local NGOs. That is to say, it is not simply the European Union acting vis-à-vis States in the rest of the world, but above all an approach aimed at creating strong civil societies capable of developing their own capacities within the contexts in which they operate.

So this is a virtuous circle to which we contribute, in which communities develop positively and emerge from cycles of vulnerability. For us, the challenge is to continue to engage to counter today’s weariness and disengagement.

Malakal, capital of Upper Nile State, South Sudan, May 16, 2023. © Solidarités International/Bebe Joel

Alain Boinet: In a recent VOICE Out Loud publication (September 2025), you published a long interview with Commissioner Hadja Lahbib on the various communication challenges for the European Union’s humanitarian aid. What should we take away from it, in your view?

Pauline Chetcuti:

First, we are very grateful to Commissioner Hadja Lahbib for lending her voice and contributing to this interview. I recommend reading it; it is really very interesting.

A key message emerges from this exchange: speak with principles and values. She places at the center dignity and the need to be in integrity with the agency of each population. She also puts communication at the heart—listening to what populations want before “speaking over” them. It is not about “advertising,” but about making the voices of our partners in different countries heard, with integrity.

She encourages communicating with values, with a real desire to convey a message of solidarity and community. The idea is that we can show impact while going beyond images that are sometimes undignified (such as those of children in conflict), often used in the past. We can communicate with dignity to foster solidarity, not just visibility.

Hadja Lahbib in Chad, 2025 © European Union/Denis Sassou Gueipeur.

Alain Boinet: In a previous interview with you published in Défis Humanitaires in February 2025, we notably discussed the DG ECHO budget for 2025. Three months from the end of the year, do we now know its amount and how do you at VOICE analyze it?

Pauline Chetcuti:

The budget question is fundamental, and all our members within VOICE are asking it.

For 2025, the amount stands at around 2.46 billion euros for the strictly humanitarian line. The figure will be consolidated by the end of the year, with possible budget top-ups. We already know that the emergency aid reserve was fully mobilized this year to respond to several major crises, and it is unlikely to be renewed before year-end. This reserve provided for 583 million euros for 2025.

We do not think there will be any major change in how the European Union will fund humanitarian crises.

As for the draft 2026 budget, the Commission is proposing a little over 1.8 billion euros for humanitarian aid; subsequently, the Council proposed an increase of 18 million to this amount. It is a step up, but it remains limited in view of the growing scale of humanitarian needs and inflation. Moreover, this does not at this stage include the emergency and solidarity reserve, which will be discussed over the course of the year.

Alain Boinet: Discussions for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2028–2035) have begun at the European Commission, which should present a proposal during 2025. Moreover, President Ursula von der Leyen and Commissioner Piotr Serafin announced a budget of 200 billion euros for “Global Europe in the world,” the new external action instrument with an indicative amount of 25 billion euros for humanitarian aid. While the increase is very significant and positive, humanitarian actors are nevertheless concerned about the vagueness and risks related to the framework and objectives. What does VOICE and its President think?

Pauline Chetcuti: :

This is a core issue for VOICE: how to use this new multiannual financial framework (MFF) and understand what this Global Europe entails.

At VOICE, we welcome the indicative amount of 25 billion euros earmarked for humanitarian aid under this new Global Europe instrument. It is a strong political signal in a particularly difficult context, marked both by rising humanitarian needs and by a growing lack of donor interest in supporting aid.

But this must be put into perspective. First, we do not yet know how this instrument will be used. If we add up the annual budget and the reinforcements of recent years (including the emergency aid reserve), we already reached a little over 17 billion euros. The increase is therefore real, but not spectacular, especially when we consider that humanitarian needs will continue to grow—particularly if the UN continues its hyper-prioritization.

Next, these figures are for now only proposals since the Member States must still decide.

Finally, another concern for VOICE relates to the political framing of this new instrument. Global Europe emphasizes the competitiveness, sovereignty and economic power of the European Union rather than the needs of affected populations. We therefore face a more political instrument, embedded in a logic of strengthening the interests of the European Union.

Nevertheless, humanitarian aid appears to be preserved, and that is positive. But will it remain independent of the EU’s political priorities? That is not guaranteed. This is precisely what we want to determine. We will advocate for aid to remain needs-based and grounded in humanitarian principles, rather than in the interests of Member States.

Within VOICE, we will continue to raise these questions and to engage directly with DG ECHO and the European Commission on the MFF issues. We also invite all VOICE members to contribute, to share their concerns and, above all, to mobilize Member States to support the maintenance of independent humanitarian aid within this new instrument. We call on each State to take a position on the new MFF to guarantee the safety and sustainability of the humanitarian envelope.

European Humanitarian Forum, 2024 – © European Union

Alain Boinet: Some Member States wish to become more involved and are considering creating a specific forum of States dedicated to humanitarian aid, with the objective of ring-fencing humanitarian funding and thus avoiding any fungibility of humanitarian funds within the overall 200 billion euros. Is this an interesting avenue?

Pauline Chetcuti:

All avenues are worth exploring if they strengthen the effectiveness and credibility of spending.

However, it is essential to ensure today that humanitarian funding is neither diluted nor controlled by the national interests of Member States or of the European Union— in other words, by geopolitical considerations.

Humanitarian aid must also remain flexible in order to react to an extremely volatile context, marked by severe and sudden deteriorations in certain countries. This flexibility must allow us to respond to immediate needs, but also to neglected or forgotten crises often absent from the media spotlight.

Whatever new instrument is built, it must respond as closely as possible to the needs of populations, while remaining accessible to NGOs, and in particular to local partners.

In short, if we open or create a new instrument, we absolutely must integrate these conditions from the outset and ensure that they are fully included in the avenue under discussion.

Alain Boinet: For the good information of our readers, particularly outside Europe, can you present VOICE in broad strokes?

Pauline Chetcuti:

VOICE is a European network of humanitarian NGOs. We bring together more than 90 member organizations based in the EU, as well as in the United Kingdom and Switzerland, which implement or support humanitarian aid.

Our role is twofold. On the one hand, we are a space for coordination and exchange among European humanitarian NGOs. This fosters the adoption of common positions, and the sharing of expertise and knowledge, and creates synergies.

On the other hand, we carry collective advocacy with European institutions (DG ECHO, the European Parliament, Member States). Through our European members and their NGO networks. For example, we work closely with national networks such as Coordination SUD in France to build common positions.

In short, VOICE is a bridge between the European humanitarian civil society and public decision-makers in a region that remains one of the world’s main humanitarian donors.

A member of Oxfam staff helps a family carry home the non-food items they have just received at the UN House in Juba. © Oxfam / Anita Kattakuzhy

Alain Boinet: How would you like to conclude this interview? A message, a call?

Pauline Chetcuti:

It is a difficult question. How can we conclude on a positive note in the face of the challenges we have discussed?

Obviously, we are facing a very severe existential crisis in the humanitarian system. We suffer from a credibility deficit, to which we must know how to respond. The response must be collective. NGOs must come together to create a strong voice, a common narrative that reaffirms the value of international cooperation and global solidarity. This is a real challenge we are setting ourselves within NGOs and that we are determined to meet.

The other point is that funding issues, although essential and at the heart of current debates, are not everything. We also need to remember why we do all this and why it is so important to ask these questions. Because this funding primarily makes it possible to maintain aid to the most vulnerable.

Obviously, we think of forgotten conflicts, such as in the Democratic Republic of Congo or Sudan, where the contexts are absolutely dire. We also think of our colleagues and populations in Gaza and Palestine. If we are questioning ourselves today, it is to preserve this international solidarity, to act as close as possible to populations, to help them not only to survive, but above all to live with dignity and exercise their fundamental rights.

Finally, for me, it is a call to collectivity, a surge of solidarity among our various NGOs. We have real collective potential if all organizations come together, notably through networks like VOICE. We can project a stronger voice and put forward essential ideas and values.

I will conclude by saying that money is not everything. What matters is what we do with it. How we transform this funding into concrete changes, into improved lives in the most complex contexts, so that everyone can get by, survive and live a better life.

Experts from the EU and UNHCR at the border between Sudan and Chad. Around 40,000 people—Sudanese refugees and Chadian returnees—have crossed the border since the start of the conflict in Sudan. © UNHCR/Aristophane Ngargoune

 

Pauline Chetcuti:

Pauline Chetcuti has been—since June 2024—the President of VOICE. Pauline Chetcuti is also Head of Humanitarian Campaigns and Advocacy for Oxfam International. A lawyer specialized in international humanitarian law and human rights, she has solid experience within UN agencies and NGOs in contexts such as Palestine, Afghanistan, the DRC and Myanmar. She provides strategic leadership on global campaigns and policies related to the protection of civilians, fragility and the impact of climate change on vulnerable populations. Author of several publications on humanitarian principles, hunger and the link between climate and humanitarian action, she contributes actively to the international debate. An expert in network management, she strengthens humanitarian partnerships and represents Oxfam in high-level forums. Guided by feminist leadership, she values diversity, inclusion and the expression of the voices of her team and partners.

CALL TO READERS

Défis Humanitaires is launching a collective reflection on the changes in the world that justify the evolution of the magazine and its layout. Thank you for:

Thank you for your commitment and loyalty to Défis Humanitaires.

Humanitarian aid: a shock to simplify procedures.

Interview with Ludovic Donnadieu.
Chartered accountant and statutory auditor, founder of Donnadieu & Associés.

Ludovic Donnadieu on mission in 2010 in Boromo, Burkina Faso, to recruit a financial manager for the NGO La Voûte Nubienne. Today, 14 years later, this manager, Boubacar Ouily, is still in charge as Burkina Faso coordinator and strategic advisor for the rest of the sub-region, and is a real pillar of the association for the deployment of its program. This beautiful story is a wonderful illustration of the preciousness of NGO support, a responsibility that falls to all their partners.

Alain Boinet
For the readers of Défis Humanitaires, thank you for introducing yourselves.

Ludovic Donnadieu
I’m Ludovic Donnadieu, chartered accountant, statutory auditor and graduate in development economics. My professional career took a decisive turn 15 years ago, following a two-year stay in Côte d’Ivoire as part of my official development assistance. This experience inspired me to set up Donnadieu & Associés, a firm dedicated exclusively to auditing and providing accounting and financial support to those involved in international solidarity.

Faced with the specific challenges encountered in the field, I saw the need to offer expertise tailored to this sector. Our firm aims to strengthen the financial security of NGOs, foundations and donors, by meeting their accountability requirements.

Operating internationally, Donnadieu & Associés strives to act as an independent bridge between funders and beneficiaries, while offering innovative solutions for optimal management of financial resources dedicated to international solidarity.

AB
At the World Humanitarian Summit in May 2016, as part of the “Grand Bargain”, one of the priorities was to provoke a “shock of simplification” of the procedures applying to humanitarian organizations. In your opinion, has this shock taken place? And what is the current situation?

LD
We are indeed far from having achieved the “simplification shock” objective envisaged at the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016. In fact, on the contrary, we are witnessing a trend towards increasing complexity of procedures for humanitarian organizations.

World Humanitarian Summit, May 2016.

There are two main reasons for this increase in complexity. The first is of a global nature: we are evolving in an era where administration and justification are paramount, requiring increasingly detailed and often redundant processes. This reflects a growing quest for transparency and accountability, but at the cost of increasing red tape.

The second factor is the diversity of funders involved in humanitarian aid. Each funder, whether national or international, operates according to its own rules and criteria. This variety generates a heterogeneous framework in which each organization has to navigate between different requirements, often with little coherence between them. This not only makes processes more complex, but also less efficient.

Despite these challenges, it remains imperative to work towards harmonizing accountability rules. Ideally, a consensus between the main donors could lead to a more uniform and simplified framework for NGOs, which would respect the objectives of transparency while reducing the administrative burden. Such harmonization would be an essential step towards returning to the spirit of the “Grand Bargain” and truly simplifying procedures in the humanitarian sector.

With this in mind, it would be beneficial for the various players in the sector, in particular donors and NGOs, to get together to discuss concrete means of simplification, taking into account the specific challenges of each type of funder and each intervention context.

AB
You call for the financial stability and operational effectiveness of humanitarian organizations to be preserved through appropriate accountability, adding that this is not always the case. Could you explain this and give us some concrete examples of what is not appropriate but could be?

LD
There’s a saying, which I believe in, that the simplest things are the most difficult.

This applies perfectly to accountability in the humanitarian sector. Current rules lack flexibility and do not always take into account the specificities of each NGO, especially in terms of its operational context.

Take, for example, financial reporting requirements. For a large NGO with substantial resources, meeting these requirements may be manageable. However, for a small NGO operating in a crisis region, with limited access to specialized accounting skills, these same requirements can prove disproportionate and divert valuable resources from their core mission.

Accountability rules should therefore be adapted to take account of the variability of NGOs’ operational contexts. For example, modular standards could be developed that could be adjusted according to the size of the NGO, the nature of its programs, and the security conditions of the environment in which it operates. This would enable a fairer assessment of their performance and compliance.

In addition, it is imperative to increase investment in training for those working in the sector on the specificities of financial management in a humanitarian context. Specialized training programs could be set up to build local capacity, ensuring that NGOs have the skills they need to respond effectively to accountability requirements.

The creation of more adapted accounting and financial tools, specifically designed to meet the needs of NGOs according to their size and sector of activity, could also help to simplify the accountability process while strengthening the financial security of organizations.

Faced with complex rules and a lack of appropriate resources, NGOs often find themselves in a situation where accountability management impinges on their ability to achieve their operational objectives. It is therefore crucial to rethink these rules to better reconcile accountability requirements with operational imperatives, enabling NGOs to focus more on their humanitarian mission.

As part of the Rapid Response Mechanism financed by DG ECHO, teams respond to population displacement alerts, and come to the aid of internally displaced people fleeing violence. It is within this framework that food assistance in the form of cash transfers, distributions of kits of essential household items and water purifiers, and distributions of nutritional supplements in the form of enriched flour to children under the age of two took place during the week of June 19, 2023. MALI – photo expo ©Vinabè Mounkoro ECHO

AB
Could you specify the difference in terms of reporting between humanitarian (emergency) actors and development actors, who operate in different contexts? What difference does this make in terms of accountability?

LD
Indeed, the nature of emergency humanitarian programs and development programs differs substantially, which is reflected in their reporting requirements and, by extension, in their accountability.

Emergency programs are often implemented in crisis contexts, where instability and insecurity predominate. These conditions directly affect the ability of organizations to report in a detailed and regular fashion. For example, in an area affected by conflict or natural disaster, access to resources such as the internet, electricity, or even qualified professionals may be sporadic. This reality can delay their reporting or limit its accuracy, impacting the way these organizations report to their donors and stakeholders.

In contrast, development programs generally operate in more stable environments. These programs can plan for the long term and often rely on more reliable infrastructures and more stable teams. As a result, their reporting can be more detailed and frequent, offering greater visibility on their activities and results.

The difference in terms of accountability between these two types of actor is therefore notable. For emergency programs, reporting requirements should be adapted to the reality on the ground. This may mean longer reporting deadlines, or simplified formats that do not require data as detailed as that expected in development contexts.

It seems crucial that donors and regulators recognize these differences and take them into account in their accountability assessment criteria. This implies establishing a common but flexible base of accountability standards, allowing for adaptations according to the specific conditions of each program. This granular approach would ensure that all organizations, regardless of the challenges they face, are judged fairly and according to standards adapted to their operating environment.

MLI ECHO 2990 – RRM – distribution of shelter kits, distribution of NFI kits and cash assistance in the Timbuktu region. Photo credit Almoudou Mahamane BANGOU

AB
In an article published in Défis Humanitaires, Olivier Routeau, Director of Operations at Première Urgence Internationale, cites two examples that illustrate the growing administrative burden of accountability without adding any operational value.

He took the example of a consortium of NGOs in Ukraine, for which the donor requested a document pack: 137 documents in addition to the project document itself, with contractual negotiations lasting 4 months. During this 4-month period, other Ukrainian or international humanitarian actors intervened on this program to meet pending needs. As a result, the project was jeopardized by overly long and complicated negotiations in an emergency situation.

Similarly, a project funded by a United Nations agency originally requested two interim monitoring reports per year. The agency finally requested monthly, formalized reporting for each of the 7 intervention sites. This increased the number of reports to be submitted from 2 to 84.

What is your reaction to these examples? How do you qualify this excess, which can hamper action and considerably increase administrative costs?

LD
These examples illustrate the challenges posed by escalating accountability requirements in the humanitarian sector. It’s clear that in these situations, the administrative burden not only hampers operational efficiency, but can also compromise the speed and effectiveness of emergency response.

On the one hand, the example of the consortium in Ukraine shows how protracted negotiations and excessive documentation requirements can delay crucial interventions. While players strive to meet these administrative demands, urgent needs remain unmet, which can lead to operational inefficiency and duplication of effort when other organizations step in to fill the gap left by extended delays.

On the other hand, the situation with the UN agency that has multiplied the number of required reports raises important questions about the proportionality of reporting requirements to the real impact on improving project management and transparency. Increasing the number of reports from 2 to 84 per year imposes an enormous administrative burden, absorbing resources that could otherwise be used in the field.

In response to these issues, it seems crucial to revisit the notion of accountability to ensure that it actually serves to reinforce efficiency and transparency, without becoming an obstacle to action. A balance can be struck by adopting more nuanced approaches to accountability, adapted to the specific context of each program. For example, simplified reporting or results-based rather than process-based evaluations could be considered to reduce the administrative burden while maintaining an adequate level of oversight.

Finally, it is imperative to build a relationship of trust between funders and funded organizations, based on a mutual understanding of the challenges and realities on the ground. This could involve closer collaboration in defining accountability requirements, ensuring that these standards are both fair and realistic.

Ukraine – 2024 – Base of Solidarités International MYKOLAIV – Michael Bunel

AB
As you said earlier, you are calling for INGOs to be provided with the appropriate resources, particularly in terms of human resources and IT tools, to enable them to meet the ever-increasing demands of donors. Today, it’s up to NGOs to build and finance these capacities, and we know that the cost is high. How could your suggestion be put into practice? How, beyond the current operating mode, could we provide NGOs with the means to respond in terms of accountability?

LD
To enable international NGOs to respond effectively to the growing demands for accountability imposed by donors, it is imperative to consider two main strategic axes:

On the one hand, it is essential to systematically include budgets dedicated to training and support in the funding allocated to NGOs, particularly those located in the South. Currently, in the context of North-South partnerships, which are crucial for obtaining funding via the “Grand Bargain”, the emphasis is on the quantity rather than the quality of the aid provided. However, it is counterproductive to finance entities without adequately preparing them to manage these funds securely and efficiently. This often translates into additional costs for NGOs in the North, who find themselves responsible for the financial mismanagement of their partners in the South. It is therefore essential to invest in capacity-building for NGOs to ensure the best possible use of public funds and maximize the impact on beneficiary populations.

It is also essential to develop and make available accounting and financial tools specifically designed for the needs of NGOs. At present, most NGOs are obliged to use generic accounting software, supplemented manually by spreadsheets, resulting in excessive workloads and increased risks of error. To remedy this, it would be beneficial for donors to finance the creation or adaptation of accounting tools that meet the complex and varied reporting formats required. Such an investment would considerably reduce the time and costs associated with financial management, enabling NGOs to focus more on their core mission.

By implementing these two measures, we could not only improve the management of allocated funds, but also enhance the transparency and effectiveness of projects run by NGOs worldwide. This requires an active commitment from donors to rethink the current funding model and integrate more structured and targeted support.

AB
In another article published in Défis Humanitaires by François Dupaquier of U-Saved, a Ukrainian NGO, he explains that IOs/NGOs transfer security risks, especially administrative risks, onto national humanitarian actors, thus hampering their ability to rescue populations. The 0-risk policy of IOs/NGOs leads to a systematic search for ineligible expenses with the local partner and, in the name of 0-risk in war zones, we have entered a cascade system in which everyone protects themselves against the risk of aid paralysis.

LD
In the context of the “Grand Bargain”, we are seeing a gradual transfer of responsibility for risk management from donors to international NGOs, and then to local organizations. This process imposes rigorous compliance requirements on local partners, without necessarily providing them with adequate resources to meet them. This approach, while aimed at ensuring transparent and ethical management of funds, can unfortunately place local NGOs in a situation of financial vulnerability, particularly when they find themselves penalized during financial audits for non-compliant spending.

It is crucial that donors take an active role in preparing NGOs for these challenges. This means checking that organizations are equipped, from the outset of funding, to meet the compliance standards imposed. Where resources are insufficient, collaboration to provide the necessary support is essential.

Currently, the dominant approach to accountability tends to focus on post-project financial audits, a method that can prove counter-productive. Instead, we advocate a proactive strategy, which involves upstream support for NGOs to prevent compliance problems before they arise.

In collaboration with the Crisis and Support Center (CDCS) and the French Development Agency (AFD), our firm has developed risk assessments for NGOs seeking funding. These assessments enable us to analyze their operational capacities and ensure that they can meet their commitments securely. We have also set up support programs to strengthen risk management and prepare NGOs for future audits.

To guarantee the effectiveness and sustainability of aid, it is essential that donors and NGOs establish a balanced and robust partnership.

National Humanitarian Conference, 22nd of May 2018. Since the first Conference in 2011, 6 more have followed. The most recent one took place on the 19th of December 2023.

AB
There are a wide variety of international humanitarian aid donors with different rules. The same applies to audit firms. You suggest harmonizing rules between donors to promote accountability and aid in the field. Is this really possible, given the diversity of legislation, accounting rules and legal frameworks specific to each country and even each international organization? Clearly, it would be desirable, but is it possible?

LD
In the field of humanitarian aid, two aspects of accountability must be systematically taken into account: respect for the legal framework of the countries of intervention and transparent management of public funds.

Indeed, every NGO, whatever its area of operation, must comply with local laws and regulations. As far as financial accountability is concerned, requirements can vary significantly from one donor to another, often posing a challenge in terms of managing and justifying expenditure.

Faced with this diversity of requirements, NGOs tend to adopt the strictest standards to avoid non-compliance. This often leads to cumbersome internal processes and a disproportionate allocation of resources to administration, to the detriment of humanitarian action itself.

The harmonization of accountability rules between donors is therefore a necessity to simplify the work of NGOs and guarantee the efficient use of funds. Clear, relevant and realistic rules would help NGOs to better understand and apply accountability procedures, while enhancing aid transparency and effectiveness.

In short, although the harmonization of accountability rules may seem complex, given the diversity of legislative and normative frameworks, it is an essential step. It should make it possible to reduce unjustified disparities, while allowing for adjustments adapted to the operational contexts of projects. This approach would strengthen aid effectiveness and build trust between donors and NGOs.

AB
You suggest that France, together with the CDCS, take an initiative to harmonize accountability and propose it to donors in EU member countries and the European Commission. In this context, can you tell us more about the CDCS’s risk mapping and what is being done in terms of training to support INGOs?

LD
For several years now, our firm has been working with the Crisis and Support Center (CDCS) of the French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, to examine the internal structure of their partner NGOs. We analyze some twenty key aspects such as accounting, finance, legality, ethics, operations and security.

This comprehensive assessment enables us to map the risks to which NGOs are exposed, by examining their internal policies, procedures and tools. We identify organizations’ strengths and weaknesses, and offer customized recommendations.

This preventive and constructive approach enables NGOs to prepare themselves to respond effectively to their funder’s accountability requirements.

Ukraine ECHO – Distribution of briquettes in Mykolaiv – Liubomyrivka – Solidarités International

AB
You say that an efficiency audit is more relevant and constructive than a financial audit stricto sensu. You also call for reconciling the objectives of accountability and project efficiency. So, what changes would you propose to achieve this? And who could bring this initiative to the attention of donors?

LD
It’s essential to recognize the relevance of efficiency audits in the solidarity sector. Traditionally, operational evaluators and financial auditors work in isolation, which can lead to contradictory conclusions concerning the same expenditure. For example, in the case of a construction project, an auditor might judge an item of expenditure to be eligible on the basis of the documents provided, even though the evaluator points out significant defects in the work carried out. Conversely, an expense could be rejected in its entirety by the auditor for documentary irregularities, even though the appraiser confirms that the work has been properly completed.

These examples illustrate the risk of disconnecting financial aspects from operational objectives. The eligibility of expenditure should not be assessed solely on the basis of its documentation, but also on the basis of the actual achievement of operational objectives. Similarly, it would be inappropriate to declare an expense as wholly ineligible solely on the grounds of administrative deficiencies, if the operational objectives have been achieved. This approach may unfairly penalize organizations that are effectively fulfilling their mission.

In the context of a financial audit, accountability is often strictly documentary, and can neglect the operational aspect and reality on the ground. However, if the budget has been respected and the operational objectives of the funding contract achieved, these results should be taken into account before declaring expenditure ineligible. This would encourage a more judicious and transparent use of public funds.

To move in this direction, it is crucial that efficiency audits are systematically integrated into our practices. These audits link financial accountability to operational performance, thus restoring the true function of accountability, which is to ensure that the public’s money is used for its intended purpose.

AB
Who do you see taking this issue of coordinated efficiency and financial audits to the funders? How do you go about it? At what level?

LD
The development of efficiency audits requires a strong commitment from political decision-makers to reformulate NGO accountability standards. This initiative could be launched in France before being extended to the European level. To this end, I propose the creation of a consultation group, made up of representatives of donors, NGOs, auditors and evaluators.

The aim would be to develop a common audit framework that enhances transparency and efficiency in the use of funds. By setting up regular, structured exchanges within this group, we could not only standardize audit procedures, but also foster a better understanding of mutual expectations, thereby increasing the effectiveness of funding and trust between stakeholders.

AB
How would you like to conclude this interview?

LD
Our discussions highlight the crucial importance of strengthened collaboration between the players involved in the accountability process. It is essential to pool our expertise and mobilize strong political will to rapidly lighten the administrative burden of NGOs, whose role is increasingly vital in the current geopolitical context. Given the scarcity of resources and the scale of needs, we must ensure that every euro spent is used as efficiently as possible.

 

Ludovic Donnadieu
Chartered Accountant and Statutory Auditor

A chartered accountant with a degree in development economics, Ludovic Donnadieu founded Donnadieu & Associés in 2008, following experience with the Agence Française de Développement and the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Africa. The aim of his firm is to develop specific, high value-added expertise in the international solidarity sector. Highly aware of the immense challenges involved in protecting and supporting young people, in 2023 he created the Fondation Donnadieu under the aegis of the Fondation pour l’Enfance, in order to lead innovative actions in the cultural field.