On a regular basis, the Nutriset Group invites humanitarian actors to come and talk to its employees from all professions. Through testimonials from field missions or through dialogues led by Christian Troubé and organized by Fatima Madani, Nutriset’s NGO customer care manager. This month, Nutriset welcomed Alain Boinet, President of Défis Humanitaires and founder of the humanitarian NGO Solidarités International.

Christian Troubé
Alain, how do you look back on the last 40 years of humanitarian work, to which you have made a major contribution? We all remember the image, in the 80s, of globe-trotters who went off to do humanitarian work with three medicines and a backpack. And we’ve seen this generation become the bosses of multinational NGOs, with budgets in the millions. In a few words, how would you sum up your career?

Alain Boinet
Christian, as you well know as a journalist, the world has changed a lot since 1980, and so has humanitarianism. Yet the need for humanitarian action is still there, more than ever. 1980 is a landmark: a small number of NGOs and individuals decided to take the risk of going to the aid of populations in danger, without authorization or visas, by entering certain countries clandestinely. This was notably the case in Afghanistan in the 1980s. While international humanitarian aid was deployed for refugees in Pakistan and Iran, which was essential, no one thought of crossing the border. On the other side of the border, however, people were exposed to war on a daily basis, without any help. This was the “French doctors” movement, embodied in particular by Bernard Kouchner and MSF. “Solidarités International” is part of this small handful of associations and individuals who decided to go beyond borders to help people, without authorization and clandestinely.

It took us around ten years to get international institutions to recognize that this was both essential and possible. Accessing populations in danger anywhere, and without authorization if necessary, is not, in my view, tantamount to calling into question borders, which are human realities. We simply believe that the duty to help people in mortal danger must prevail everywhere in the world. It’s a dream, an ideal, but also a very concrete objective.

International humanitarian aid meets the vital needs of populations mainly affected by conflict or war. Most of the time, these are civil wars, although Ukraine is an exception, for religious and/or ethnic reasons. So geopolitics is important for humanitarian action. Humanitarian action also responds to the consequences of natural disasters and major epidemics.

Every change in geopolitical times has major humanitarian consequences. Briefly, to answer your question, we can distinguish a few major periods over the past 45 years.

• The 1980s, with the Cold War between East and West,
• The fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR in 1989 and 1991,
• UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s Agenda for Peace in 1992, with the hope of perpetual peace.
• The war in ex-Yugoslavia from 1992, the first Gulf War in 1991, the genocide in Rwanda in 1994,
• The great strategic disruption with the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, followed by the “war on terror” and the invasion of Iraq in 2003,
• A transition period in 2019 with COVID-19,
• Since February 24, 2022: Russia’s attack on Ukraine and the war represents an epochal change that will once again impact the world and humanitarianism.

We are witnessing a return to sovereignty for states, nations and former Empires. In Senegal, the election of a young president who is strongly and democratically asserting his country’s sovereignty is to be compared with the military coups in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger. These countries have a very strong desire to recognize their sovereignty and independence.

We are caught up in this geopolitical context with major challenges. Access to populations in danger, insofar as we may encounter difficulties because we may be perceived as Western associations. The multiplication of players. Sovereignty also raises the question of identity. Then there’s the question of funding – will humanitarian aid remain a priority on the international agenda, or will it dwindle among institutional funders?

 

CT
We are indeed at an important historical turning point. This was underlined by all our leaders, notably at the European Humanitarian Forum held in Brussels on March 18 and 19.

Before discussing this geostrategic development for the humanitarian sector, I’d like to return to the question of humanitarian funding. The NGO world operates on very large budgets, and its action has helped to influence the increase in French and international public aid. Over the past year, however, we have witnessed what you call the “scissor effect”: pledges are not being kept and funding is falling.

France’s ODA was 10 billion in 2017, 15 billion in 2022, but budgetary arbitrations in 2024 are raising fears of a significant reduction in this aid. Bruno Le Maire has announced a reduction of 742 million euros. France, like many other countries, is making trade-offs to finance defense rather than public aid. What would you say about this situation?

AB
You put your finger on an essential point. Institutional funding reflects political choices about priorities. Over a long period of time, we have seen a steady increase in Official Development Assistance (ODA) worldwide, even though it falls short of the target of 0.7% of GNP, as well as an increase in humanitarian aid budgets. These budgets, like ODA, are unevenly distributed: most ODA comes from OECD member countries.

Let’s take an example of how the financial resources of humanitarian organizations have evolved. It is interesting to refer to a Défis Humanitaires study on this subject concerning a dozen French humanitarian NGOs – Médecins Sans Frontières, Action Contre la Faim, Handicap International, Solidarités International, Première Urgence Internationale, etc. – whose budget was 450 million in 2006 and 1.9 billion in 2021. This represents a 4-fold increase in the space of 16 years. This gives an indication of the growth that has taken place in other countries and at international level.

In the scissor effect, something may surprise us. ODA continues to grow. In 2021, the budget was 235 billion US dollars and 287 billion in 2022, representing an increase of 22%. For 2023, the increase is again 1.8%, according to the OECD. However, at the same time, in 2023 we have seen a marked weakening in funding for international humanitarian aid: the UN’s assessment of the resources needed with OCHA was of the order of 57 billion dollars in 2023, and we have mobilized less than 20 billion US dollars in funding. This means that we have met only 35% of the humanitarian needs identified.

CT
It’s worth remembering that we’re usually talking about 50-60% of funds actually disbursed. So we’re seeing a freefall in funding from the field.

AB
Every year, the United Nations, with OCHA, launches an appeal to States to raise the necessary funds. As you point out, we usually mobilize 50 to 60% of this amount. This time, we’re down to 35%. This is a serious matter. At the European Humanitarian Forum (EHF) on March 18 and 19, 2024 in Brussels, Cindy McCain, representative of the World Food Program (WFP), said that heartbreaking choices had had to be made: “in Afghanistan, we’ve cut over 10 million people from aid, in Syria we’ve cut 4 million, and in Somalia we’ve cut 3 million people from aid. And the list goes on.” This means that the United Nations in particular, and other humanitarian actors, are engaged in a policy of prioritization. As resources are scarce, the question is: who do we help and who do we help less or not at all? It’s a terrible dilemma.

In my editorial on the scissor effect in Défis Humanitaires, I write that there is a growing distortion between increasing needs and decreasing resources. What’s at stake is what’s going to happen in 2024, and the whole humanitarian world is witnessing this scissor effect. I hope that the EHF, which has mobilized a lot of financial resources in Europe, will help to redress the balance. But it’s also up to us to do something about it. Of course, defense budgets will increase – and this is necessary in the current context, as it is a collective life insurance policy, as we can see in Ukraine – but humanitarian aid is also a life insurance policy for populations in danger. We must not forget them, especially as humanitarian budgets are out of all proportion to defense budgets or international economic exchanges.

 

CT
When we talk in terms of numbers of beneficiaries, it becomes dramatic. OCHA had forecast that by 2023, there would be 245 million people in the world to help. The scissor effect meant that we were only able to help 128 million. For 2024, OCHA says it wants to help 180 million people at a time when wars are multiplying, as well as major humanitarian crises. With a budget of 46 billion, we’re not even sure we can achieve this. Especially as we assume that half of the 46 billion will never be paid out.

Let’s take a look at the EHF last March. It presented a lucid assessment of a dramatic situation and, at the same time, made an appeal to remain hopeful and find ways to mobilize. Janez Lenarčič, DG ECHO Commissioner, opened his speech by declaring, “Make no mistake, the humanitarian lifeboat is sinking.” Martin Griffiths, OCHA’s Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, who has since resigned, argued that NGOs needed to change their business model, considering both the situation of donors and the explosion of needs. At the same time, we are in a geopolitical situation unseen since 1945.

How can we do less with less, how can we learn to optimize humanitarian aid in the field?

There is also the question of access to populations. On the one hand, we have high-intensity conflicts, and on the other, gang conflicts and civil wars. So how can we guarantee access to humanitarian aid in this context?

Finally, faced with the rise of state sovereignty and nationalism, the very identity of humanitarian universalism, which had become established since the 90s, is being challenged. Here too, the space for intervention is shrinking. What do you think about this?

AB
To add to what Janez Lenarčič said, he said: “The global humanitarian crisis has continued to degenerate. The humanitarian aid lifeboat is increasingly powerless in the face of the growing tsunami of humanitarian needs. Make no mistake, this lifeboat is sinking. We don’t have much time left to repair it.

During the EHF, a funding appeal was made to member states and the European Union, which mobilized 7.7 billion euros. It’s a wake-up call. In addition, a decision taken by the European Council at the end of the first two EHFs has been reaffirmed. This involves increasing humanitarian aid to 0.07% of each country’s gross national income (GNI). This is a long way off. To put it another way, on average, in the OECD countries that are the main donors, humanitarian aid will represent 14% of ODA in 2022, a little less in 2023, and some countries are well below this figure. For example, the United States devotes around a third of its ODA to humanitarian aid, and France was at less than 1% for a long time. Since 2017, France has climbed back up the slope. For 10 years, we had to take action to get our country involved in international humanitarian aid. In 2009, it was a few tens of millions of euros, in 2022 it’s 653 million euros, and, normally, in 2025 France’s humanitarian budget should be one billion euros.

In France, ODA has risen from 10 to 15 billion euros in the space of 5 years. For this, we must salute the decision taken by the President of the Republic and the government. So, today, France’s ODA budget for 2024 has been cut by 746 million euros. This is not the only budget to be cut. The environment, for example, is much more affected, with savings of almost 2.5 billion euros. Virtually all ministries are affected, with the exception of priority ministries such as defense. I do hope, however, that the one billion French euros will be available for humanitarian aid in 2025 in France.

We, who began providing humanitarian aid in 1980, without any institutional funding to help the Afghans, must fight against this backlash and for access to aid for populations in danger. We need to convince decision-makers, because political will is essential. According to a survey, 90% of citizens in the 27 European countries consider humanitarian aid to be very important, even essential. There is widespread public support for humanitarian aid. This is our greatest support in translating this into political decisions. Prioritizing, innovating and optimizing humanitarian resources: that’s the most important thing.

 

CT
It’s true that humanitarian resources are optimized through political gamesmanship, but this can have increasingly pernicious effects when it leads to donor countries selecting beneficiaries according to their strategic stakes.

AB
At European and international level, humanitarian aid is likely to become more sensitive to political considerations. Take Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, for example, which have experienced military coups, and are appealing to the Russians while asking the French and Americans to leave. It is likely that France, the United States, other countries and Europe will not continue their efforts in the same way when certain countries are challenging their political model and supporting hostile regimes such as Russia, China and Iran. So there’s a real political issue on the table, even though humanitarian aid aims to be impartial, neutral and independent of political agendas. We need to advocate and act in favor of impartial humanitarian aid, while remaining clear-sighted about the changes underway.

We also need to become more efficient, and innovation is central to this. One example is hulo (humanitarian logistics), an initiative currently supported by 13 NGOs. hulo pools logistical resources, making it possible to spend less and better through grouped orders. In 2023, hulo generated an economy of scale of 15.03% on orders from its NGOs.

Another point on which we need to innovate concerns bureaucracy and the sprawling administration that risks suffocating humanitarian aid. In an article published in Défis Humanitaires, Olivier Routeau, Director of Operations at Première Urgence Internationale, wrote that, in the context of a consortium in Ukraine involving several NGOs, 137 documents in addition to the project document itself had been requested, and contractual negotiations then took 4 months. So, 4 months later, some of the players had already met some of the identified needs, rendering the project largely obsolete.

He cites another example: a project financed by a United Nations agency which originally requested two interim monitoring reports per year. In the end, the agency asked for formalized monthly reporting for each of the 7 intervention sites. This increased the number of reports to be submitted from 2 to 84. It’s no longer possible to work like this. We need a real simplification shock.

In a new article in the 88th issue of Défis Humanitaire, Ludovic Donnadieu, founder of an auditing firm specializing in NGOs, tells us that we need to change our model, because it’s outdated and generates stifling bureaucracy to the detriment of aid to populations. He suggests correlating financial and project audits, in order to establish the link between resources and the actual implementation of projects. These are simple, common-sense proposals. At the moment, the current reporting system is a waste of time and money. Humanitarian aid has neither money nor time to waste.

[PHOTO HULO]

CT
Carole Poudré, Director of Customer Operations at Nutriset, poses the following question. Beyond the bureaucracy, aren’t donors wary of the ability of NGOs to deal with humanitarian emergencies? This mistrust of NGOs on the part of institutions probably stems from the bureaucracy you mentioned.

AB
Hello Carole. It’s the umbrella technique. Institutional administrators want to protect themselves, and the consequences cascade down. We have to say that we have to stop behaving this way. It’s the realization of the project that’s the priority. At Solidarités International, we have refused funding in the DRC from a United Nations agency that wanted to impose an armed escort from the United Nations Mission in Congo (MONUSCO) on us when we signed the project. We refused because this armed escort risked endangering not only our teams, but also the populations we were going to support in the Ituri province. In the end, we won our case. As soon as we have convincing arguments, we need to be able to set limits with our partners.

The problem is that we often have to deal with financiers who are quite disconnected from the realities on the ground. We are also increasingly partnering with local NGOs. As a result, some international NGOs transfer this bureaucratic practice of chasing ineligible expenses onto local NGOs to protect themselves. We have to get out of this system and reject this way of behaving.

But let’s make no mistake. We’re talking about public money from the taxes of citizens in the countries that fund us. We have an obvious duty of accountability for ethical and practical reasons. These funds have been entrusted to us, and we must scrupulously account for them. However, we are all in a bureaucratic trap from which we must emerge together.

CT
Is there any possibility of NGOs at international level speaking with one voice to donors? Carole writes that it takes a certain amount of courage for NGOs to defy the financial machine. It also means time spent on advocacy that is not fully devoted to helping people.

AB
At the first World Humanitarian Summit in May 2016 in Istanbul, as part of the Grand Bargain, a dozen objectives had been set, including that of a shock of administrative simplification. Not only has it not happened, but the situation has worsened. International institutions and the UN must be called to account for their responsibilities and commitments.

It is possible to act in this way within the framework of NGO coordination – although more and more actors are becoming implementing partners who apply the precautionary principle above all, rather than genuine humanitarian actors who feel co-responsible for the general humanitarian system. On the other hand, if we succeed in convincing one state, we can hope to have a leverage effect on other states. So we need to work with both NGO coordinators and governments. In this way, we can influence France, which in turn can influence the other member states of the European Union and the United Nations.

Getting things moving at this level is both complex and essential if we are to advance the humanitarian cause.

CT
I’m wondering about access to today’s difficult terrain. We could mention Gaza, where humanitarian action has been filtered, not to say prevented, for six months by both the Egyptians and the Israelis. We could mention Sudan, now a large white spot on the map of Africa, where 8 million people are in great danger, particularly in Darfur, where humanitarian access is virtually impossible. Other places could also be mentioned – Nagorno-Karabakh, DRC…

What’s your take on this? How can we get access to these areas? In the 1980s, we didn’t ask ourselves the question, we just went for it. Nowadays, because of the bureaucratic institutionalization of the humanitarian world, we don’t go there any more, even though we could go there all the same, by forcing doors and borders?

 

AB
Access to relief for vulnerable populations is the very reason for humanitarian aid. There is no such thing as zero risk, so risk has to be taken into account. Let’s face it: in a country at war, there’s no such thing as zero risk. In general, the greater the risk to the population, the greater the risk to us. On this point, there is a great diversity of NGOs – some of which practice the absolute precautionary principle and stay behind, and others which continue to take risks in a controlled way to rescue people who are in mortal danger. We must remember that humanitarian aid is about helping to save lives. Access is a priority.

The case of Gaza is specific. It’s a territory of 360km2 that is completely closed off. It is therefore impossible to enter without authorization, and strikes are so frequent that it is practically impossible to operate without, at the very least, prior authorization. Although the Israelis seem to warn NGOs and the population by telephone before the bombardments, this does not prevent the tens of thousands of civilian deaths we know about. International humanitarian law must apply, and aid must enter and reach the people of Gaza.

Humanitarian principles must be genuinely applied, in particular political neutrality and impartiality of aid, based solely on vital needs. This is the only way to act in war-torn countries. Independence from political agendas is our best visa for access to populations in danger.

CT
There remains the question of the new identity of humanitarianism, which stems from the rise of sovereignism. Firstly, in terms of humanitarian action in the field, we are seeing many regions of the world become inaccessible to what is rather hastily termed Western humanitarianism. At the same time, we are seeing the emergence of donors outside the traditional aid system – I’m thinking in particular of the Gulf States. They are beginning to want to be humanitarian actors, but on their own terms, according to their own vision of the world.

What’s your take on this development?

AB
Humanitarian aid, like development aid, should be shared and distributed throughout the world. The countries with the means to do so – China, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates – need to join forces with Western countries. The issue is also whether they will apply the principles of humanitarian aid. Chinese humanitarian aid, which does not go by that name, is subject to economic and political interests. It is important that these countries get involved and cooperate with the OECD on the resources they allocate to official development assistance and humanitarian aid. In some extreme cases, the situation is particularly critical. One example is Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. On the one hand, the Saudi air force was bombing medical facilities supported by health actors, while at the same time supporting humanitarian aid on the spot!

I’d like to come back to the question of the universality of humanitarian aid and the challenges posed by sovereignty. My conception of universalism is not opposed to recognizing the diversity of cultures, religions, peoples and histories. There are universal values, but there is also a human diversity that is a richness of humanity. I believe that universalism must recognize diversity. In that case, the sovereignty of states and populations is not necessarily a problem. Humanitarians must recognize that they are not at home when they intervene abroad, and that they must respect the laws of these countries. It’s not enough just to provide relief; you have to discover and learn about the culture of the people you’re helping, and respect it.

Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, a former French ambassador to China, Germany and Great Britain in particular, notes that others don’t think like we do, and that a German is not a Frenchman who speaks German. I believe that universalism, in the context of the rise of sovereignty and the return of the old Empires, does not preclude a partnership that respects differences, as long as the rule of law is sufficiently respected. Humanitarian values are universal values, because anyone who suffers and is in danger of dying for lack of water, food, disease or shelter must be helped, regardless of where they come from or who they are. It’s not Western, it’s human.

CT
You’re very much in line with what we stand for at Nutriset. How do you see the role of the private sector in humanitarian aid?

AB
Défis Humanitaires has had the opportunity, on several occasions, to highlight what the Nutriset Group does. It’s a company that does remarkable work in the field of nutrition, and has diversified its products considerably. I’m also a member of the Board of Directors of the Veolia Foundation, which is doing great work that certainly deserves more funding. I think we need to promote and develop initiatives by companies and local authorities alike, based on shared humanitarian principles.

Humanitarian work often involves taking risks, and this can pose problems for the private sector, even though it is not necessarily involved in the field. Intervening in difficult contexts can pose a problem for companies, although some do so with operational partners. At the very least, they can act in the field of post-crisis reconstruction. Here, we may need know-how as well as financing. If I take the Veolia Foundation as an example, we had a case in Ukraine. When the Russians destroyed the Kakhovka dam on the Dnieper River on June 8, 2023, flooding huge areas with towns and villages, people no longer had access to drinking water. The risk of water-borne diseases was very high. Solidarités International, together with the Centre de Crise et de Soutien of the French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs and the Veolia Foundation, carried out an emergency project involving the installation of five water purification plants, the training of personnel in western Ukraine by the Veolia Foundation, and the deployment where necessary in the Kherson region with Solidarités International. This is the kind of initiative that needs to be multiplied, because international companies also have a responsibility to act wherever they can with humanitarian partners, not with a commercial aim but with a humanitarian aim that honors them.

The Nutriset Group is an example of this. It is so in its own actions, in what it produces, notably with its partners in the PlumpyField network.

 

Fatima Madani
Sophie-Anne Sauvegrain, anthropologist at Nutriset, asks whether the fact that an emergency situation lasts over time helps to reconfigure relations between humanitarians and populations, in a better recognition of the diversity you mentioned?

AB
Hello Sophie-Anne. For me, it’s always been a conviction that you have to take an interest in the country you’re in, the people, their culture, their history, their language. In terms of language, the relationship changes enormously once you know a few words and phrases in the local language. It’s a great added value that changes the relationship, the distance. But humanitarian aid workers often arrive in countries in crisis and need to be effective very quickly. They can’t rely on existing structures, which often fail because of conflict or disaster. The result is an increasingly technical approach.

We must never lose sight of who the people we’re helping are, because their identity is also part of their dignity. Recognizing people as people, not numbers, is fundamental to our relationship with them, and indispensable to our effectiveness. Dialogue and recognition must be established. It’s up to them to tell us what their needs are.

I remember an assessment mission to Angola a long time ago. I asked the people returning from the mission if they had asked the people what their needs were, where they came from, why they were there, where they would like to go next, what they thought their needs would be in the future. I realized that they had only asked these questions of the authorities, UN agencies and NGOs. That wasn’t good enough, and today it won’t happen again. Recognizing people’s identities means respecting their dignity and working in partnership to provide effective relief.

FM
Sophie-Anne Sauvegrain also asks if Alain can give an overview of the breakdown between UN-type international institutions, international NGOs and local NGOs.

AB
Every year, the Global Humanitarian Assistance Report gives precise statistics on these issues. I suggest that Sophie-Anne have a look at this report. I would also point out that every year, Défis Humanitaires produces a ten-page summary in French of this report, which we are publishing in this edition, which covers the year 2023.

It’s not easy to answer this question, since UN agencies act on their own, but also in partnership with the international NGOs they fund. They themselves may work with local NGOs. There is a kind of multi-actor partnership that is difficult to isolate by category. It’s also possible to have several different backers on the same project, and in varying proportions of funding. In any case, there are operators in the field who are in contact with the populations and who respond to needs, first and foremost the NGOs, the ICRC and the National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the United Nations agencies and national NGOs, without forgetting that the populations and the national players are the first actors of solidarity among themselves.

In Ukraine, we have seen a drift in this system: certain international NGOs, to protect themselves from financial audits by donors, focus on ineligible expenditure by local and national NGOs, rather than supporting them, even though it is the latter that are often the most exposed in the frontline zones. I believe, on the contrary, that these partnerships should enhance the capacities of national and local NGOs, and that they should complement each other.

At the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul in May 2016, some people emphasized the opposition between national and international NGOs. In my opinion, this was a serious mistake and we lost years. If we want things to work, we have to work in complementarity with each other. NGOs have difficulties with audits in terms of capacity, because they require time and skills. Accountability is essential, so we need to imagine a transfer of skills. We need to think about training in these areas.

CT
What would be your conclusion Alain?

AB
Défis Humanitaire is an online magazine that benefits from a committee of experts with diverse skills and various partners. We publish a diversified monthly edition that takes account of current events and also deals with in-depth issues. The magazine is read in France, of course, but just as much in the USA as in the Sahel countries, in Brussels or Geneva as in Armenia and the DRC.

To return to our common mission, which consists in saving people and not abandoning them when they are faced with risk and danger, it is an indispensable human mission, from emergency relief to the return to peace and reconstruction, and then as soon as possible to the resumption of development. It’s our duty.

We are fortunate to meet exceptional people who, even if they are destitute, teach us a great deal. We discover the world in all its diversity, which is both multiple and unique. We can help them through their trials and tribulations, and this mission remains relevant whatever the difficulties. Humanitarian aid is not a long, quiet river; we face many obstacles, so we have to hang in there and overcome them together. Let’s be optimistic!

 

Christian Troubé

A senior reporter specializing in international relations, Christian Troubé first became acquainted with the humanitarian world in the early 1980s, during the war in Lebanon. As a journalist, he went on to accompany a number of NGOs to various fields of action. As a volunteer, he was also a director of Action contre la Faim. The author of numerous books on humanitarian aid, he now puts his experience at the service of the Nutriset Group, advising on its strategic communications.

Links to Nutriset :
https://www.groupenutriset.fr
https://nutriset.fr
https://www.plumpyfield.com

 

Who is Alain Boinet : click here to read his biography.