Humanitarian work, hit but not sunk, get up!

© La Chaîne de l’Espoir – Wounded equipped by the Ukrainian center *Unbroken*

In anticipation of the upcoming G7 from June 15 to 17, 2026 in Evian, the French government commissioned IFOP to conduct a study (1) on the state of public opinions in the G7 countries (2) regarding official development assistance and international cooperation. The IFOP study holds surprises for us and raises a paradox. It engages here our analysis and proposals from Humanitarian Challenges.

As a reminder, the G7 was born in 1975 at the initiative of French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, after the first oil shock of 1973, in the context of the Yom Kippur War. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its global consequences will be very present at the 51st edition of the G7 member countries on the shores of Lake Geneva in Haute-Savoie. This G7 also mobilizes the “Civil Society 7” or C7, which brings together hundreds of actors with Coordination Sud (3), the French platform of international solidarity organizations.

This G7 will address for the first time an essential humanitarian issue, that of the global logistics supply chain. It will be preceded by only a few days by the 7th National Humanitarian Conference (CNH) on July 3 in Paris. CNH is organized by the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs and its Crisis and Support Center (CDCS) in connection with humanitarian NGOs of the Humanitarian Coordination Group (GCH).

But what exactly does the IFOP study tell us about the state ofpublic opinions of G7 countries on international cooperation?

What does the IFOP study tell us?

This very comprehensive study can essentially be summarized by several findings.

First, the marked interest of public opinions in international news, averaging 71%.

Next, a hierarchy of issues ranging from terrorism and extremism (72%), to conflicts (67%) and the economy (55%).

If international cooperation is a moral obligation for 70% of respondents, it is also a policy that serves our interests for an average of 78% within the G7 and 71% in France.

According to IFOP, the principle support for financing developing countries reaches 75%, with Italy ranking far ahead (84%) while France comes in last (66%).

But there are figures that catch our attention. The level of understanding of what international cooperation is stands at 50% on average and 46% in France.

The most problematic aspect lies in the low level of information that public opinions say they have, 47% on average in G7 countries and only 28% in France, where 50% of people say they are poorly informed and 20% very poorly informed!

Conversely, public expectation is very strong to know how international cooperation funding is used, 75% on average versus 82% in France. Another question, 75% ofpeople and 82% in France wonder what the concrete results of this cooperation are. But just as much, 75% ask what its usefulness is for each G7 country. Finally, note a demand for control for 73% on average and for 77% in France. The expectations for tangible and convincing evidence are very high and constitute a challenge for the future of international solidarity.

Moreover, what is truly surprising is the profound ignorance regarding the budget of the States that finances international cooperation. Only 2% of respondents know that this percentage is less than 1%, while 16% think it represents between 10 to 15%. This amount is estimated by the French at 14.7% of Gross National Income (4) while the actual percentage allocated to Official Development Assistance (ODA) in 2025 was actually 0.42%! The gap is considerable and indicates an abyssal lack of accurate information.

To summarize broadly, a strong majority of the populations of the G7 member countries are in favor of international aid which they greatly overestimate while asking to be better informed about the relevance of projects, their concrete impact (only 37% of French people consider that aid is effective), about rigorous control of implementation and, finally, about the interest of this cooperation for the donor countries themselves.

Finally, 64% of inhabitants believe that what will happen in developing countries could have a significant impact on their lives. It should be noted that public opinion in France is one of the most reserved regarding cooperation policy.

But what do the latest figures on Official Development Assistance tell us?

The recent report from the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (5) notes a 23.1% decrease in Official Development Assistance in 2025 with a budget of 174.3 billion dollars.

© OECD – The evolution of official development assistance in the world

26 of the 34 OECD DAC member countries reduced their aid in 2025, and decreases had already occurred in 2023 and 2024. France’s aid in 2025 was 14.53 billion dollars, or 0.42% of GNI. This had already decreased by 11% in 2023 and by 13% in 2024. According to Coordination Sud, aid could be reduced by 58% in France over 2 years. The OECD anticipates a further decrease of 5.8% in 2026.

Humanitarian aid from DAC countries has sharply decreased by 35.8% to 15.5 billion dollars, marking a second consecutive decline after 5 years of growth (2019-2023).

To better understand these figures, note that 5 DAC countries (United States, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, and France) account for 95.7% of the total ODA decrease, but the United States alone is responsible for three-quarters of this decline with ODA down 56.9% compared to 2024. The top 5 contributors represent an amount of 132.02 billion dollars out of a total of 174.3 in 2025.

For reference, non-DAC countries dedicated 13.3 billion dollars to cooperation and 11.7 billion to 30 major philanthropic foundations that report their donations to the OECD.

Finally, projections indicate a further 5.8% decrease in DAC ODA in 2026, a figure that does not take into account the consequences of the war in the Middle East and the embargo in the Strait of Hormuz.

© OECD – Official development assistance in France

Paradox, analysis and consequences.

A paradox appears in the opposition between a majority of inhabitants of the G7 countries who still support international cooperation and the strong, rapid, and ongoing reduction in the funding of international cooperation by the G7 countries and the DAC.

The first explanation that comes to mind is a gap in understanding and attitude between public opinion and governments. Citizens still habitually support international cooperation while states have already drawn the consequences of the profound shifts underway in international relations, power dynamics, interests, and risks of war.

In this context, there are two realizations on the part of Western countries, particularly Europe, since from now on we must set aside the United States under Donald Trump.

The first is the emergence of so-called southern countries grouped in the BRICS, which represent about ten countries (6), influenced by former empires aspiring to become so again, like Russia and China, and which challenge the world order born at the end of the Second World War as well as the Western model (democracy, rule of law, market economy).

The 16th edition of the BRICS Summit in Kazan (Russia) on October 24th 2024

The case of several Sahel countries such as Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso is emblematic. Why cooperate with countries whose governments come from military coups, who demand the departure of French troops, who call on Russian mercenaries from the Africa Corps, and who require the absence of French public funding in humanitarian and development NGO projects. This profoundly changes public cooperation policies even though the vital needs of populations victimized by war and chronic poverty still legitimize humanitarian action.

The second shock is the awareness of the risk of a war extension following Russia’s attack on Ukraine on February 22, 2022. Thus, war becomes once again in Europe a means of conquest and it could be renewed, particularly against the Baltic countries. This would force NATO member countries to react to the risk of being drawn into the war while most of these countries are not ready to fight it and must prepare by rearming without American commitment being certain anymore.

If you combine these two external shocks with internal risks on the political, economic, and social levels in some countries, as happened in the United States with Donald Trump’s second election, you then have sufficient reasons to understand the ongoing changes in priorities.

Handbook by the Swedish government “En cas de crise ou de guerre” 2024

And yet, for these countries, continuing these cooperation policies in an adapted form is indeed a necessity in order not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and to resist the pressures of the neo-emerging empires.

What challenges for the next National Humanitarian Conference?

France’s humanitarian budget was 285 million euros last year while it was 800 million in 2023 and should have been one billion euros in 2025.

Since the 1st National Humanitarian Conference in 2011, we have only seen progress, first with the creation of this Conference, then that of the Humanitarian Consultation Group, but also the adoption of a Humanitarian Strategy of the French Republic and, finally, the continuous increase of the humanitarian budget and ODA starting from 2018.

© Alain Boinet – 2021 National Humanitarian Conference

The next CNH on July 3 cannot therefore follow in the footsteps of the previous ones but, on the contrary, seeks both to measure the decline in order to contain it while looking for alternatives, alliances, new perspectives.

This CNH will have 3 main topics on the agenda.

The humanitarian space and international humanitarian law.
Humanitarian reform or “reset”, innovation and pooling.
Partnership and funding.

The challenge is great because we must understand that the fall in funding, the erosion of humanitarian authority, the decline of international humanitarian law, and the restriction of access to aid for populations in danger are linked to each other and lead to a negative spiral! This is what must be stopped and a new dynamic restarted.

If we have already discussed these issues in Défis Humanitaires, I would like this month to focus on 4 of them:

In a preparatory document for the G7, the Ministry of Finance and Budget mentions the choice to “move from a logic of assistance to a logic of mutually beneficial partnership.” If this logic of ODA as an investment partnership with solvent countries can be considered, how would this be possible with poor countries victims of war, disaster, or a devastating epidemic?
Humanitarian urgency must remain an unconditional moral duty, but also a strategic duty to prevent the spread of misery and chaos of close to neighboring countries, even beyond
Human security should better inspire humanitarian action in the future based on its food, health, economic, personal, community, and political components, as the insecurity of some can become the insecurity of others.
Let us note that while ODA has decreased by 23.1%, humanitarian aid has dropped by 35.8%! To avoid this drift, we should return to the idea of “sanctuarizing humanitarian aid” within ODA and dedicating a minimum of 9% of its total amount to it.
Finally, since public funding is down, why not launch a humanitarian lottery in France?

Conclusion.

Every change of era brings a change of priorities. But the moral and strategic necessity of humanitarian and development aid must remain a constant to save lives, lift people out of poverty, and generate sustainable development.

In a world that is both divided and interdependent where everything is known, solidarity remains a comparative advantage that distinguishes the supportive from the predators. There is no incompatibility for a country to serve its population and interests while delivering emergency relief where it is vital, while supporting development that is in everyone’s interest.

Without forgetting to respond to citizens’ strong expectations for information regarding the relevance of cooperation, its impact, good management, and the mutually beneficial partnerships it creates.

That is precisely the mission set by Défis Humanitaires, in this edition as in previous ones, is to act against misinformation as well as disinformation.

You too can be an actor in this humanitarian mission by sharing our magazine around you and supporting it with your donation (makeadonation) to allow it to exist, to last, and to develop for its readers. Thank you.

Alain Boinet.

Footnotes :

https://www.afd.fr/fr/ressources/sondage-g7-partenariats-internationaux
Member countries of the G7 : France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Canada, United-States, Japan.
Coordination Sud, website of the C7 dedicated to the G7. https://2026civil7.org/fr/
Revenu National Brut “Le RNB comprend le produit intérieur brut (PIB) et les revenus nets du travail et de la propriété reçus de l’étranger dont on soustrait les revenus versés à l’étranger”.
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and developpement. OECD and APD : https://www.oecd.org/fr/topics/policy-issues/official-development-assistance-oda.html#:~:text=L’aide%20internationale%20a%20connu,1%20%25%20par%20rapport%20%C3%A0%202024.

Discover the other articles of this edition :

Alain Boinet is the president of the association Défis Humanitaires which publishes the online review www.defishumanitaires.com. He is the founder of the humanitarian association Solidarités International of which he was director general for 35 years. Moreover, he is a member of the Humanitarian Consultation Group with the Crisis and Support Center of the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, member of the Board of Directors of Solidarités International, of the French Water Partnership (PFE), of the Véolia Foundation, of the Think Tank (re)sources. He continues to go to the field (north-east Syria, Haut-Karabagh/Artsakh and Armenia) and to testify in the media.

A host of challenges for the humanitarian sector.

© WHO In February 2025, before the ceasefire broke down, Palestinians displaced in southern Gaza were returning en masse to the north of the enclave.

In this editorial, I seek to name and understand the upheavals currently underway.

This article is neither exhaustive nor definitive. Its aim is to explore new situations in order to adapt the humanitarian response. It draws on numerous sources.
As we did before with our series of articles “humanitarian questions”, I invite you to join the debate by sending us your testimonies, analyses, and perspectives at contact@defishumanitaires.com

Challenges converging.
A change of era.

We are experiencing a decisive shift in the political and geopolitical era—some even call it civilizational. Whatever one thinks, populism is advancing globally in various forms, accompanying the collapse of the international order established after the Second World War.

This includes the rise and assertion of power by Russia, China, Turkey, and the Global South in all its diversity. As Giuliano da Empoli said, “Trump is not a historical accident or a fit of madness—we are tipping into a new world.” What is this new world, and what will be the role and place of humanitarian action within it?

BRICS meeting in Kazan, Russia, from 22 to 24 October 2024

Aid funding in decline!

The funding of international humanitarian aid is a reliable indicator of trends and the priorities of UN member states. And funding is collapsing—no one knows when or how it will stabilize. It’s easy and somewhat fair to blame the abrupt freeze on all aid by the Trump administration and the dismantling of USAID.

However, many European countries were ahead of the United States with massive budget cuts—in the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and almost everywhere else to varying degrees, with the exception of the European Union.

Official Development Assistance (ODA), OECD

The reasons vary depending on whether we’re talking about humanitarian aid or development assistance, which fall under Official Development Assistance (ODA). Beyond doubts about aid effectiveness and the rising call for productive investments, the primary reason today is the priority placed on security in the face of the serious risk of the war in Ukraine spreading across Europe. The second reason lies in the state of public finances, national debt, and ongoing tariff wars. Defending one’s freedom, independence, and sovereignty has become a vital priority in the face of mounting threats.

With what consequences?

What will be the human and political consequences of dwindling humanitarian funding? According to OCHA, in 2025, 305.1 million people will require humanitarian aid, but only 189.5 million have been targeted across 72 countries to receive assistance estimated at $47.4 billion.

UNHCR Global Trends Report 2024, 9 October 2024.

However, in 2024, of a $49.6 billion budget, only $21.2 billion was raised—just 43% of the required amount! What will 2025 look like with ODA in free fall?

Among these at-risk populations were 122.6 million forcibly displaced people as of June 2024. Recall: 51.23 million in 2013, 89.27 million in 2021—and the numbers are expected to continue rising. Will we abandon internally displaced people and refugees? What will be the human, migratory, and political fallout from such disengagement?

For instance, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, insufficient funding forced the shutdown of a severe malnutrition treatment program for 220,000 children under 5.

2024 was the deadliest year for humanitarians, with 281 killed—63% in Gaza and the West Bank, mostly nationals. Will we now say to humanitarians: “Take the risks, you’re on your own”?

As a French citizen, I am personally convinced
that we must prepare for a possible expansion of the war in Ukraine in order to contain it—and thus secure peace. And if this does not prevent war from being imposed on us, then we must declare it, fight it, and win it.

What I fail to understand is this: in a world where military budgets total $2.4 trillion, and banking sector profits stand at $1.1 trillion, how is it not possible to find $47 billion to save lives, stabilize countries, and revive development and trade that benefit everyone?

Short-sighted selfishness will catch up with us—and cost even more!

Ukraine and the return of war.

Since February 24, 2022, the war in Ukraine has shattered the principle of inviolable borders and shown that war is once again a conceivable means of resolving conflict. It has killed and wounded hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, displaced millions, and destroyed much of the country and its infrastructure—not to mention Russian losses. The war consumes enormous resources, yet they remain insufficient from Ukraine’s allies.

I’m not convinced we truly grasp the risks and consequences of a potential expansion of this conflict to other frontline countries in Europe—and possibly to us through a domino effect! Let’s be clear-eyed: Vladimir Putin has declared a long-term war against us, supported, tolerated, or ignored by many Global South nations. And if Donald Trump chooses to end U.S. support for Ukraine, the risk of war in Europe would only grow. European countries, however, are not yet prepared for such a scenario. Let’s hope it never comes to pass and that a ceasefire, then a settlement, brings this war to an end.

Yet even if full-scale war isn’t certain, it’s entirely possible. Some experts believe it has already begun—through cyberattacks, propaganda, disinformation, rearmament, and a mobilization of public will. How will humanitarian actors respond to this threat? What could they do if war comes to Europe? What would happen to humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, and independence in such a scenario?

And what about Europe?

Among the world’s top three humanitarian donors, along with the U.S. and Germany (which has slashed much of its aid budget), the European Union remains. At the recent European Humanitarian Forum (EHF) on May 19–20 in Brussels, the European Commission appeared to reassure humanitarian actors—yet never addressed the “elephant in the room”: shrinking budgets.

The agenda was technically sound: ongoing crises, cooperation, coordination, humanitarian diplomacy, the nexus, national actors, climate impact. But it deliberately avoided tackling the decline in ODA and its consequences for humanitarian work. Business as usual! Nevertheless, voices such as VOICE on these issues, UNRWA on Gaza, and informal hallway conversations raised the alarm.

Ursula von der Leyen confirmed the DG ECHO humanitarian budget of €2.5 billion, including the emergency aid reserve (€580 million), in line with the 2021–2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (€11.569 trillion).

This framework is truly strategic, and discussions are beginning for the 2028–2035 cycle.

Here lies the decisive issue! Given the budgetary constraints of EU member states, will the Commission’s budget be sufficient—and how will it be allocated?

Former EU Humanitarian Commissioner Janez Lenarčič rightly emphasized the need for assertive humanitarian diplomacy to preserve humanitarian space, which must now address the question of funding—without which, access to at-risk populations is impossible.

The current Commissioner, Hadja Lahbib, set out a roadmap: We must focus on two areas: first, increase funding, broaden the donor base, and work more efficiently. Second, we must reduce humanitarian needs, often caused by conflict and climate crises.

UNRIC. During the session on the Middle East, attended by Hadja Lahbib, European Commissioner, and Philippe Lazzarini, Director of UNRWA, at the European Humanitarian Forum on 20 May 2025 in Brussels.

I fully support this—but we must reframe the European humanitarian issue within the broader challenges the EU faces: internal cohesion, the war in Ukraine and its potential expansion, trade wars with the U.S. and China, and weak, naïve governance amid a world reverting to jungle law. The Europe of nation-states cannot avoid a political aggiornamento (renewal) if it wishes to defend its very existence and role.

The UN in turmoil.

Donald Trump’s early decisions confirmed the decline of globalization and multilateralism, shaking the UN—which is being forced to adapt. Payment delays by the U.S., China, and others threaten a potential $1.1 billion deficit by year-end.

To mark the UN’s 80th anniversary, António Guterres launched the H80—or UN80—initiative in March 2025 to urgently reform the organization amid falling funding.

The UN must now cut costs, consolidate its agencies into four clusters—peace and security, humanitarian affairs, sustainable development, and human rights—reduce its workforce by 20%, and relocate to more affordable cities. This real austerity drive will have operational consequences yet to be fully grasped.

OCHA is contributing with its “Humanitarian Reset” led by Tom Fletcher, launched March 10 and based on a 10-point reform. In brief: prioritizing national actors, context-specific adaptation, prioritization planning, integrated reforms, joint advocacy, bold efficiency measures, field redeployment for emergencies, resource and service pooling, simplified clusters, and a more strategic, high-performing “integrated planning framework.”

Necessity dictates—but what are the consequences for aid and for national and international humanitarian actors who must prepare for these shocks?

While we now know OCHA’s “humanitarian reset,” what about NGOs in their diversity and coordination mechanisms? How will they come through this ordeal?

Humanitarian strengths and weaknesses.

Let’s begin with a brief—too brief—introspection of the humanitarian sector, which we too rarely undertake. But now is the time to dig deeper, both in its flaws and strengths, to reshape humanitarian action for this new world.

Humanitarians often see themselves as belonging to the “good” side, judging others from a perceived moral high ground. They also tend to see nations, empires, or ethnic communities through the lens of NGOs—a grave mistake.

Humanitarians view the world as one global humanity, which is true—but without sufficiently recognizing its diversity, which is both a richness and a source of differences.

Above all, humanitarian action is an existential act to aid any person or population in peril. This cross-border solidarity is more relevant than ever. Humanitarianism isn’t the answer to everything—but without it, what would be the daily fate of those in danger? Every day, around 550,000 humanitarians work to assist 190 million people—men, women, and children—who actively contribute to mutual aid as fellow human beings.

The greatest frustration and limitation of humanitarian work is the inability to help everyone in urgent need. Obstacles abound—from access denial to falling funding.

Crises abound—in the DRC, the Sahel, Yemen, Ukraine, Sudan, Haiti, and Gaza, the latter being the horrifying emblem of the unthinkable becoming routine.

Why did pediatrician Alaa Al-Najjar lose nine of her ten children—Yahya, Rakan, Eve, Jubran, Raslan, Rifan, Sidine, Louqman, and 7-month-old Sidra—in a single airstrike on May 24 in Khan Younis? Only her husband and one child survived. Why?

With its pogrom on October 7, 2023, and the abduction of 251 hostages, Hamas triggered a spiral of endless violence with Israel. As of April 30, 2025: 52,400 deaths (including combatants), 118,014 wounded. By the end of 2024, 87% of housing was damaged or destroyed, over 80% of businesses lost, and two-thirds of roads unusable! As if that weren’t enough, a full humanitarian blockade was imposed on March 2, 2025. Famine is now weaponized—violating international law.

To calm international outrage and limit aid diversion by Hamas or gangs, Israel bypassed competent humanitarian organizations in favor of an ad hoc body: the Humanitarian Foundation for Gaza. Its first distributions ended in chaos, death, and injury.

These ongoing destructions and the blockade seem aimed at the deportation of all or part of Gaza’s population. What do we call that? Is a political solution still possible? Let’s hope the upcoming meeting on Palestine at the UN General Assembly in New York (June 17–20), co-organized by France and Saudi Arabia, will answer that.

In conclusion.

As we publish issue 100 of the Défis Humanitaires online journal, current events reaffirm its value to the humanitarian community and its partners by:

Promoting humanitarian action
Analyzing the cause-effect link between geopolitics and humanitarianism
Documenting the major challenges ahead

Défis Humanitaires is read each month in dozens of countries by thousands of people whom we warmly greet here, with a wish to be useful to their work.

But we also need their support and participation to do more and better. To that end, we invite you to: