Alain Boinet. Hello, Manuel Patrouillard, and thank you for this interview about the work of Handicap International – Humanity and Inclusion. On April 4, you launched a campaign titled “The Nobel Peace: Repairing Peace, Together.” Why launch this campaign now, and what do you hope to achieve with it?

Manuel Patrouillard. Hello, and thank you for having me. We have high hopes for this campaign, because the Ottawa Treaty is currently under attack from all sides. It is being challenged by states that, historically, have never acceded to it, but also—and this is more concerning—by states that have ratified it.

The goal of this campaign is clear: to hold States Parties accountable for their obligations and to denounce violations of the treaty. This treaty remains a fundamental pillar in the fight against profoundly devastating methods of warfare that today affect 85% of civilians. Antipersonnel mines are cowardly weapons, and it is our responsibility to prevent their return to conflict zones.

Some of the countries considering withdrawing from the treaty—Poland, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia—are democracies bordering Russia that are preparing for a threat they deem real in light of the situation in Ukraine. Other states on Europe’s eastern flank could follow suit if this threat were to intensify. However, antipersonnel mines cannot be part of the response to this threat.

Alain Boinet. In this context, how can you develop your campaign and make your case to the public in these countries?

Manuel Patrouillard. The first question is obviously a military one: what is the real purpose of these weapons? The facts have long been established: their military effectiveness is extremely limited. A minefield does not stop an army’s advance; it can be bypassed, and when it does slow it down, it is only for a very short time.

These weapons are more a matter of military redundancy, which is catastrophic from a humanitarian standpoint: 85% of the victims are civilians, and 40% are children.

The issue is therefore also a moral one. What is the point of a weapon that kills or maims large numbers of civilians and very few combatants? There are other ways to defend a territory without resorting to devices that have dramatic long-term human and economic consequences.

Democracies can sometimes succumb to oversimplification and facile rhetoric. Challenging the international consensus on the ban on antipersonnel mines is no trivial matter: it carries extremely strong symbolic weight, including regarding the quality and democratic robustness of the states involved.

Protecting civilians does not mean laying mines that will remain active for decades, or even centuries, that will explode in children’s hands and permanently hinder economic development. What is presented as a short-term solution actually creates a major long-term humanitarian problem. It is in this sense that we refer to them as “weapons of cowards.”

Alain Boinet. Following the Trump administration’s decisions in January 2025 to abolish USAID and drastically cut its funding, and after the concurrent decline in Official Development Assistance from 26 out of 34 member countries of the OECD Development Assistance Committee, what are the consequences for Handicap International – Humanity and Inclusion, its organization, and its programs?

Manuel Patrouillard. The consequences are massive. The U.S. budget cuts have not only affected direct funding from the United States, but also a portion of the United Nations funds that depended on it.

These reductions are part of a broader trend of declining public funding, which began in 2024. For Handicap International, this represents a loss of approximately half of its public funding, or nearly 40% of its total resources.

This situation has already forced us to reduce our workforce by about 20%, and this trend of downsizing continues. It is still difficult to gauge the final extent of this, even though we remain hopeful for new developments with certain donors. In concrete terms, this crisis is resulting in the closure of programs and countries of operation—a trend that has already begun and could intensify if the decline in funding is confirmed.

Alain Boinet. Faced with this situation—which is at once new, sudden, and rapid—how are you effectively managing this decline? What alternative model are you moving toward, and how are you adapting your communication to this new context?

Manuel Patrouillard. As early as 2024 and early 2025, we had been working on a five-year strategy for the period 2026–2030. It already anticipated a contraction in funding, but not the scale of the current crisis. That said, several directions we set at the time are proving relevant today and must be accelerated.

The first concerns regionalization. We have chosen to consolidate our operations into five major regions worldwide in order to pool expertise and support functions. The goal is not to create additional layers of bureaucracy, but rather to streamline operations by having a single finance, HR, and operations department per region. This structure makes the decline in funding more sustainable and allows us to maintain our impact on the ground.

The second focus is on strengthening our core mission. Handicap International is recognized for three major areas: the inclusion of people with disabilities, physical and functional rehabilitation, and humanitarian demining. Even though inclusion is now challenged by certain ideologies, it remains central to the expectations of the majority of donors. We will therefore continue to champion it fully, just as we do rehabilitation—particularly in emergency contexts—and demining, which remains tragically relevant today.

Finally, we are developing the HI Movement, a network of organizations committed to inclusion on a global scale. This movement will facilitate the sharing of expertise, tools, and training, as well as the formation of consortia. Conceived before the crisis, it is now taking on full meaning and will be accelerated. These three pillars illustrate the rapid evolution of our model, in step with current challenges.

Alain Boinet. In a March 2025 interview with Chroniques Philanthropiques, you wondered whether the humanitarian sector was at the end of a cycle or whether it was, rather, the end of a model. A year later, what is your view on this, looking beyond HI and considering the entire humanitarian ecosystem?

Manuel Patrouillard. I firmly believe we are at the end of a model. Humanitarian needs have never been greater, and the diversity of actors remains essential. But we must acknowledge an inescapable reality: funding is at an all-time low, creating an unsustainable squeeze when combined with the explosion in needs.

The erosion of international humanitarian law further exacerbates this situation. The protection once afforded to humanitarian workers is eroding dramatically; in Gaza, we have lost several colleagues and their families. We have become targets.

Added to this are access difficulties, administrative roadblocks, and restrictions that have grown increasingly complex over the past twenty-five years. We must therefore thoroughly rethink our methods of intervention, our operational models, and our approach to humanitarian access. The transformations I have mentioned for HI are fully in line with this broader reflection.

Alain Boinet. In this new geopolitical and humanitarian context, have you established red lines regarding the conditions under which NGOs like HI receive funding from institutional donors and the United States, among others?

Manuel Patrouillard. Handicap International has always established red lines to preserve our independence and impartiality. That is precisely why we created the HI Institute for Operational Ethics. For over ten years, it has guided us in analyzing each of our funding sources through a rigorous ethical framework: our ability to accept these funds, associated conditions, potential partnerships, and relationships with conflict stakeholders.

Everything we do at HI regarding funding, access, and partnerships goes through this ethical filter. With recent changes in U.S. funding and the strengthening of the Mexico City Policy, which places significant constraints on organizations like ours, we are no longer able to accept U.S. funding. In fact, we lost this funding when the new administration took office, and it is highly unlikely that we will be able to regain it in the short or medium term.

Alain Boinet. Some people point to the simultaneous questioning of humanitarian action—both through criticism labeled as populist and through so-called decolonial criticism. What are your thoughts on this? How can we reconcile universal, identity-based, and more localized values with humanitarian action and localization?

Manuel Patrouillard. I believe that when we are attacked by extremists on both sides, it is actually a good sign. It means we have found a middle ground—admittedly uncomfortable, but fair. Being on that middle ground exposes us more to crossfire, and unfortunately, that’s not just a figure of speech. Why are we being attacked? Probably because we are a thorn in the side of autocrats of all stripes.

Civil society operates openly: it starts with needs and engages in dialogue with governments, ministries, and communities. This is how we build effective international solidarity, by striking the right balance between what must be done locally and what must be brought in from outside—whether in the form of expertise, tools, or systems.

From the very beginning, Handicap International has sought to operate in this way, although, like any international organization, we have also learned along the way and adapted our practices. In the early days, on the border between Cambodia and Thailand, we produced prosthetics with and by people with disabilities themselves, using simple materials. Since then, we have strengthened our commitment to a more localized approach, particularly through a more structured dialogue with communities, and partnerships with local organizations and national authorities that are more balanced and designed for the long term.

International solidarity and collaboration within a universal humanity can never be called into question over the long term, not even by those who advocate isolationism. The world is globalized: if we do not collectively address global problems, they will ultimately impose themselves upon us. HI has demonstrated the relevance of its model. It will evolve, but it will remain grounded in partnership with governments and communities, always placing the beneficiary at the center, in a response that is humane and dignified.

Alain Boinet. Since you just mentioned it, I can attest to the extraordinary work done by Handicap International in 1982 along the border between Thailand and Cambodia, where many Khmer people were fleeing the Khmer Rouge regime and then the Vietnamese invasion and were stepping on landmines. And I remember going to Khao-I-Dang, Nong Chan, Nong Samet, and the Dângrêk Mountains, and seeing HI’s work in fitting those who had stepped on these mines with remarkable prosthetics, since these individuals could themselves tinker with their prostheses to best adapt them to their specific needs. This is an absolutely exceptional initiative that remains as vital today as ever.

Manuel Patrouillard. Thank you for putting it so much better than I could—and especially for having witnessed it firsthand. I arrived after that period, but this story deeply embodies the spirit of Handicap International. It is a spirit rooted in frugality, practical innovation, community engagement, and the ability to do a lot with little, without ever losing sight of what matters most.

Alain Boinet. To come back to that, I also remember young mothers who had lost a leg above or below the knee—which is quite different—and who were smiling and full of joie de vivre because they had regained the use of their legs thanks to these prosthetics. When you’re able-bodied, it’s hard to imagine the difference that can make in someone’s life.

Manuel Patrouillard. When we talk about “getting back on one’s feet,” that’s exactly what we mean: standing tall. It’s as much about mobility as it is about dignity. It’s about giving people with disabilities the opportunity to lead a normal life: to work, go to school, farm a field, and start a family. “Living upright” has long been our organization’s slogan, and it remains profoundly true.

Prosthetics are, of course, essential, but beyond that, it is a vision of human dignity. It is about giving these people back what landmines—those cowardly weapons—sought to steal from them: an independent, dignified, and fulfilling life.

Alain Boinet. In contrast to the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence that commonly guide the humanitarian work of diverse actors—as you mentioned earlier: the Red Cross family, UN agencies, and NGOs—some voices are calling for the politicization of humanitarian aid. How should we understand this, and how should we respond as a humanitarian organization?

Manuel Patrouillard. On the ground, neutrality is an absolute prerequisite for our ability to intervene, to be protected, and to avoid becoming targets. We remain deeply committed to neutrality, but also to impartiality—which means basing our decisions solely on needs—and to independence from states, which is essential to our freedom of action.

These principles remain unchanged at Handicap International. However, they are now being challenged by ideologies that have resurfaced and are targeting us. Why? Because we are building an autonomous civil society—precisely what authoritarian regimes seek to weaken. Because we are forging connections between peoples and fostering cross-border and multicultural exchanges, where autocrats seek to isolate populations.

Faced with this, we can no longer remain passive. In our donor countries, when we are subjected to stigmatization or ideological manipulation, we have a duty to enter the political arena—not into a partisan, left-right debate, which must be avoided at all costs—but into a political debate in the noblest sense. We have things to say about the reality of aid, about what works and what does not.

We must denounce what we observe on the ground: war crimes, ineffective policies, dangerous measures. The example of the Gaza Foundation is tragic, having caused more than a thousand deaths in the deadliest food distribution in history. Pointing out what isn’t working isn’t a choice: it’s a responsibility. If we don’t do it, no one will do it for us.

Alain Boinet. But to avoid any misunderstanding, I assume this is a humanitarian political response or argument, and not an ideological political argument, as you seemed to imply?

Manuel Patrouillard. Absolutely. This is a humanitarian political stance, not an ideological one. We must avoid fruitless national or ideological debates and constantly bring the discussion back to what matters most: the meaning behind it. As the saying goes: the wise man points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger. Our responsibility is to look at the moon, and to refuse to let ourselves be trapped by the snares set by certain ideologues or future autocrats.

Alain Boinet. In the coming months, several important events will take place, such as the National Humanitarian Conference (CNH) in Paris on June 3, followed by the G7 summit from June 15 to 17 under the French presidency. Isn’t this a favorable moment for humanitarian actors, in the context you just mentioned, to take action and seek to influence the decisions that will be made or that could be made?

Manuel Patrouillard. We must obviously maintain a constant dialogue with the French government and continue to strengthen our capacity to influence, even though we know how constrained governments are today by complex agendas. But it is precisely during this period of geopolitical tensions and a sharp decline in funding that the humanitarian voice must carry weight: when budgets are tightening, every trade-off has immediate consequences for civilians’ access to care, protection, and survival.

But our role is also to help restore a sense of direction. This means tirelessly reiterating what must remain non-negotiable: respect for international humanitarian law, the protection of civilians, and impartial and unimpeded humanitarian access. It also means protecting those who deliver aid: humanitarian workers must never become targets, and attacks against them must be prevented, documented, and punished.

In this regard, France should join countries like Spain, which today take a clear and consistent stance against the excesses of war-mongering governments and violations of international law. Calling things by their name, accepting the consequences, and clearly explaining to citizens what is right and what is wrong: this is essential.

We cannot maintain a double standard. What is true in Ukraine cannot be false in Gaza. We cannot maintain a double standard. What is true in Ukraine cannot be false in Gaza. That said, our expectations vary depending on the forum. The National Humanitarian Conference is an opportunity for France to lend credibility to its humanitarian ambitions, to clearly state what it stands for—the rule of law, access, and partnerships—without sidestepping the issue of resources.

The G7, for its part, is a forum where room for maneuver is very limited in the current context. Let’s hope its members show enough determination to collectively call for respect for international humanitarian law, demand impartial, safe, and unimpeded humanitarian access, and make the protection of humanitarian workers an operational priority.

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

Manuel Patrouillard. We are at a moment of profound upheaval, of a paradigm shift. Over the years I’ve spent in the humanitarian sector, several observations have become clear to me.

First, the excessive fragmentation of international actors must be addressed. The diversity of civil society is a strength, but the proliferation of cumbersome structures, duplicated both at headquarters and in the field, undermines overall effectiveness.

Second, localization must be rethought from the perspective of accountability. We cannot localize without ensuring accountability, particularly regarding financial matters. Donors bear a major responsibility here.

Similarly, the UN system must undergo reform, particularly regarding frugality and value added.

Finally, we must also better integrate available innovation capabilities, including artificial intelligence, where we remain collectively too slow to act.

This reevaluation is necessary.

But I want to conclude on a decidedly positive note: civil society is indispensable. It is part of the solution, provided it can adapt, because it often enjoys stronger local acceptance, and because it remains best positioned to mobilize and deploy resources in a frugal and effective manner.

Manuel Patrouillard, Executive Director of the Handicap International Federation

Originally from the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region, Manuel Patrouillard pursued his studies in Paris, Madrid, and Lyon before enrolling at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales (HEC). A career in management then unfolded, marked by six years in the corporate sector, followed by some fifteen years in consulting, where he led large international teams across all continents from Paris, Lyon, and Geneva. In early 2013, seeking to give new meaning to his professional life, he accepted the role of interim director of Aide et Action France and Europe, which was then facing multiple challenges.

He remained in that position for a year, during which time he infused the organization with new energy, recruited, and brought in the new director. Following this assignment, he took the helm of Handicap International in March 2014 and has since dedicated himself to implementing a development and transformation strategy to address the explosion in humanitarian needs and the radical evolution of the international aid sector. Under his leadership, Handicap International has more than doubled its field operations while decentralizing its decision-making and management centers, thoroughly reforming its organization and operating methods, and aligning and revitalizing its network of approximately ten legal entities worldwide.

To discover Handicap International : ONG de solidarité internationale | Handicap International France

Discover the other articles of this edition :

• Humanitarian work, hit but not sunk, get up! – Alain Boinet
• Interview with Pascal Ausseur, Director of the Mediterranean Foundation for Strategic Studies (FMES)
• Humanitarian Aid: The End of the Golden Age, Major Uncertainties… Solutions? – Pierre Brunet
• 50 years of geopolitics : after leaving the benches of college – Salomée Languille