Interview with Mathieu Nabot

Country Director of Solidarités International (SI)

Alain Boinet: Hello Mathieu, can you tell us what Solidarités International is doing in Ukraine?

Mathieu Nabot: Solidarités International has been working in Ukraine since February-March 2022, i.e. since the start of the Russian invasion. Over these thirty months, our action has stabilised in 2023 and 2024, but there is now a slight reduction in terms of financial volume and areas covered, due to the general drop in humanitarian funding. Nevertheless, the number of people who will benefit from our actions should remain stable overall.

Today, our programming focuses on two main sectors: water and sanitation, and shelter. These operations are funded mainly by two partners: the Americans with BHA (Bureau For Humaniarian Assistance), and the French with the CDCS (Centre de Crise et de Soutien du ministère de l’Europe et des Affaires étrangères) and the AFD (Agence Française de Développement). We are therefore working in the fields of water, sanitation and shelter, to support people remaining in areas heavily affected by the fighting and bombing, as well as displaced people living in collective reception centres, within host communities, or resettled elsewhere where reception conditions are not yet fully optimal.

Our intervention strategy is based on two main axes. The first is to provide an emergency response to the immediate needs of people who have been hit by the bombings, with the aim of restoring access to water and shelter wherever possible. The second approach, which is more focused on recovery, involves working closely with the local authorities, mainly in the areas of water and sanitation, to provide dignified conditions for people to return home. Today, many Ukrainians are seeking to return to their areas of origin, and we want them to be able to do so under acceptable conditions.

We are concentrating our efforts on water and sanitation infrastructure, particularly for small municipalities and urban centres in rural areas, to ensure a functional system for these populations. This includes supplying pumps, technical equipment, pipes and water towers, which are often destroyed or damaged by the Russians. The water towers were sometimes used as lookout points by snipers, or were subjected to a scorched earth policy. In many places, water towers have been destroyed.

We are currently operating in six oblasts or regions: Kherson and Mykolaïv, served by the Mykolaïv operational base; Dnipro, Zaporijia, and the unoccupied part of Donetsk, covered by the Dnipro office; and the Kharkiv oblast, supported by the Kharkiv office.

Each of these bases has between 30 and 40 staff, including full support and programme teams. The coordination team based in Kiev, with between 20 and 30 staff, provides technical support to the teams, is accountable to donors and maintains relations with the CIP. Today, our mission has around 100 to 110 staff, including Ukrainians and internationals, with a budget that will reach 16.5 million euros in 2024 and is estimated at between 10 and 12 million for 2025, with the hope of a slight surplus.

AB: What skills does the team have and how is it made up of expatriates and Ukrainians?

MN: The mission in Ukraine has a strong expatriate presence, for two main reasons. The first is that we’re still in a stabilisation phase, because the Ukrainian crisis is still very new, having been with us for only 30 months. We are only just beginning to move out of emergency mode, a phase in which large numbers of expatriates are often mobilised to launch operations, thanks to a pool of people trained and experienced in these professions, who are sent out as a matter of priority. The process of transition to local staff takes time, but it is underway, and we plan to reduce our expatriate team by almost 30% in 2025 compared with 2024, which is a testament to our efforts in this direction.

The second reason is that Ukraine is not a country accustomed to humanitarian crises, as may be the case in certain other countries in Africa, Asia or elsewhere, where there is already a job market that is sensitive to humanitarian issues. Here, we had to start from scratch. That’s why we have expatriates in specific humanitarian roles, such as donor accountability, project implementation, project managers, activity monitoring, performance indicators, needs assessment and community accountability, particularly in MEAL (livelihoods and food security). These very specific skills were absent in Ukraine. On the other hand, for more general functions such as logistics, finance and human resources, we mainly employ Ukrainians, as in-depth knowledge of the local market is essential. As a result, we currently have around 30 expatriates out of a total of 100-110 employees.

AB : What seems to characterise the situation in Ukraine is the great diversity of situations and therefore the need to adapt. How do you adapt to the diversity of emergency, rehabilitation and even development needs in areas close to or further away from the front line?

MN: It’s true that it’s sometimes a complex, almost paradoxical balance: we’re operating in a country at war, but which is also facing development challenges. In our programming, on our own scale and for a limited period of time, we focus mainly on recovery. Our approach focuses more on restoring existing infrastructure and rehabilitating water and sanitation networks than on a complete construction process, which is more in line with the ‘build back better’ concept than with structured development.

What’s important to bear in mind in our approach, and what we wanted to do in our strategy, is that there are always emergency areas where the needs are always immediate vital needs: it’s a question of providing water to people whose networks have been destroyed or guaranteeing access to food, or at least the necessary means (cash or vouchers) to get it. This remains a priority that we are also reminding our donors to bear in mind.

In addition to these emergency needs, there are broader issues relating to living conditions, in particular creating the conditions for the dignified return of displaced populations. Sometimes, the urgency of the direct conflict is less perceptible, as when we have to re-establish a sanitation system in a liberated and stabilised area where the local authorities want to work together. We try to find a link with the conflict, but there are situations where we go a little further and act to improve their system, which will last over time.

This duality, between emergency and recovery, is essential. We are also very grateful to be able to count on a project like the one financed by the CDCS and the AFD, which enables us to combine these two approaches. We are constantly reminding our donors that a successful intervention requires this link: for an emergency donor, to go a little beyond immediate aid, and for a development donor, not to limit itself to ‘pure’ development, but also to engage in recovery actions. In this way, we can guarantee the sustainability of infrastructure and operations, while ensuring a lasting impact.

AB: Can you tell us about this project, which combines emergency relief, rehabilitation and development, with the involvement of several partners?

MN: There are actually three components to this project, which is what makes it so special and interesting.

The first component is the emergency response, where we are helping the local authorities responsible for water distribution (Vodakanals) so that they can provide drinking water to people affected by the bombardments, who no longer have access to water. This assistance is crucial to rapidly restoring access to a vital service.

The second component focuses on recovery. Solidarités International is supporting the Vodakanals so that they can fulfil their public service mission. This includes rehabilitating and upgrading the hydraulic infrastructure needed to distribute and treat water. We are mainly targeting rural municipalities, which corresponds to our level of technical expertise and our capacity to absorb large volumes of work. In particular, we will be working on water networks, supplying equipment and rehabilitating water towers, among other things.

And then there’s the third component, which will be managed by a financial engineering firm, Seureca, which is part of the Veolia Foundation. This firm will work with several urban localities that we identify to develop investment projects and development plans linked to water infrastructure. The aim of this component is to prepare for future development and construction projects.

As regards the search for technical expertise in the field of water and sanitation, we have encountered difficulties in finding specialists. Although we don’t carry out highly technical work, it was essential to find people with training in these fields. In the end, we were able to recruit general engineers who were able to train in these specific areas. We chose not to destabilise the Vodakanals, who need these human resources, and therefore worked closely with them on the refurbishments. As part of this project, we have also set up a training component for the Vodakanals, focusing on certain maintenance techniques and methods, adapted to their specific needs, as identified during joint analyses.

AB: So there ‘ s also a training component planned?

MN: There’s a whole relay of training that will cover both the use and maintenance of the hydraulic equipment supplied, as well as how to maintain the facilities.

AB: Will they be members of your team or our partners?

MN: We won’t be recruiting them internally. We’ll be working through Ukrainian experts to build up training capacity on certain specific aspects of the state’s water and sanitation structures. We also plan to train them on all the equipment that can be supplied to us, in particular by the Veolia Foundation, such as the Aquaforce water treatment systems. As this equipment is quite specific, some municipalities are not yet familiar with it. We will therefore be training them in the use, maintenance and replacement of these systems.

AB: We can see today that the war is raging on the front line in Donetsk, causing further displacement of people and destruction of infrastructure, and yet we are seeing a reduction in international funding. Is this the case?

MN: It’s a fact that humanitarian aid fell significantly between 2022 and 2024, and it looks like it will continue to fall in 2025. To illustrate this with our own budgets, we will go from around 25 million euros in 2022-2023 to 10 and 12 million euros in 2025, which represents a reduction of more than half for us.

AB: Solidarités International is a member of a major consortium of 5 French humanitarian NGOs. Can you tell us about your work in this context?

MN: Yes, it’s the ‘Dorijka’ consortium, which brings together Solidarités International SI, Première Urgence Internationale, Action Contre la Faim, Triangle Génération Humanitaire and Handicap International/Humanité et Inclusion, and benefits from substantial funding through BHA, with an initial budget of 96 million dollars in 2022. The first phase of this project ended in October 2024, followed by a second phase which also began in October 2024, but with a reduced budget of 15 million dollars, demonstrating the drastic reduction in funding. This can be explained by the classic mechanisms for funding humanitarian crises. In general, there is a peak in funding when a crisis breaks out. In the case of Ukraine, this peak was particularly high, reaching levels of investment unprecedented in other humanitarian crises. However, it is logical that donors should reduce their commitments after such a peak. Currently, the appeal for the United Nations humanitarian response plan is less than 50% funded for 2025.

Several factors explain this situation. After a period of emergency, donors are seeking to balance their budgets and adjust their priorities in line with new emerging crises, such as the conflict in Gaza. It is essential for Ukraine, and for international chancelleries, to continue to support the country in its war, while at the same time starting to rebuild. Humanitarian funds are gradually evolving towards development mechanisms. A significant proportion of funding has been redirected towards bilateral aid to the Ukrainian authorities. Unlike in other contexts, here we are cooperating with a functional government capable of managing and absorbing these funds for reconstruction, thus reducing the need for intermediaries such as national or international NGOs.

AB : How do you see the end of 2024 with winter. How are the Ukrainians coping with this war and how can we anticipate what will happen next?

MN: The political situation in the United States is having an impact on humanitarian funding, particularly for projects in Ukraine. The blocking by Congress of aid, which included funds for arms and humanitarian assistance, has created instability that could result in a reduction in funding in 2025. However, there is also the possibility that additional funds could be released, depending on political developments in the United States and the outcome of the forthcoming elections.

As far as Ukrainians’ perception of the current situation is concerned, it is clear that they are living from day to day. The traumatic invasion of February 2022 has profoundly disrupted their daily lives and their ability to plan for the long term. Most Ukrainians now only plan two months ahead, trying to establish a semblance of a life plan in a context of constant uncertainty.

Indeed, winter is coming, and it’s something we have to anticipate in Ukraine, given the harshness of winter here. We’re fortunate in that our backers are paying close attention to this issue, which means that there’s a real awareness. It will be difficult to do otherwise, but there is still a very significant level of money available for these special operations, particularly to prepare for winter. At Solidarités International, we are very committed to these operations. It’s an integral part of what we do, and we’re even seeking recognition for it. In the areas where we operate, we don’t have the operational and distribution volumes that the ICRC, UNHCR or other UN agencies have. However, we do have Raions (Ukrainian administrative entities comparable to our departments) in which we are going to intervene and where we will be the only ones to do so in terms of winter aid (winterisation).

These operations require substantial budgets and logistics. We started this work in August, so that we could distribute as early as October, at the very start of winter. We have improved, because in 2022, we were distributing too late in the winter, which posed a problem for those who needed help at the start of winter to keep warm. Little by little, winter after winter, we’ve made progress and we’re confident that we’ll be able to distribute on time, i.e. before the extreme cold sets in.
But beyond winterisation, we’re also looking ahead to 2025 and planning to do things differently from what we did in 2022 and 2023. For us, this means taking a much more qualitative approach, one that is less focused on global distribution. We are seeking to establish identification criteria based on our own needs assessments, rather than relying solely on beneficiary declarations.

Thanks to our institutional partners, the funding bodies, we are also putting resources into needs analyses, whether on a global or more localised scale. This is a point I want to stress, because our strategy has changed. We used to have a ‘no regrets’ emergency approach, where we distributed as soon as there was a need. This enabled us to meet needs quickly. We then began to intervene in fewer zones and fewer sectors, which was the case in 2023-2024.

In 2025, our ambition is to refocus on two sectors, namely water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and shelter, while concentrating geographically on certain areas within the oblasts I mentioned earlier. We want to operate in fewer Raions and fewer Hromadas (equivalent to districts and departments), so that we can invest more time and resources in these areas. This will enable us to propose an integrated approach and to tell our technical or financial partners, current or future, that we, Solidarités International, thanks to secured funds, intervene in water/sanitation. We invite them to contribute more, which would enable them to participate in a larger project than the one they would have supported with their simple budget.

So we adopt a programme approach, in which we seek to bring together several technical and financial partners. As Country Director, I am convinced that if we can build up expertise in a sector and an area, Solidarités International will be better recognised by technical and financial partners in the future.

So we’re trying to anticipate how the association can really build and develop its positioning. In the long term, I don’t know, because it’s Ukraine. As you mentioned, the logic of development and reconstruction is underway. What role will Solidarités International play in this phase? That’s not necessarily our DNA. How far do we want to project ourselves in Ukraine? That’s one of the strategic discussions we need to have with the head office in Paris. However, until 2025, 2026, or even 2027, we still have a role to play in the recovery, until reconstruction takes place with budgets and projects that we won’t be able to implement, because that’s not our area of intervention.

AB : Given the reduction in humanitarian funding, do you think there are people who will not be helped? If this is the case, are you lobbying donors, institutions and countries that fund aid?

MN: We do this advocacy at our level, but also through the NGO coordination bodies, which in this case are called the NGO platform.

It’s essential not to forget that there are still needs, particularly emergency needs. Slowly but surely, emergency needs are tending to be forgotten. However, today there are still people close to the front line, and they are often the most vulnerable of the most vulnerable. These are mainly elderly and disabled people who, before the war, already had low incomes and therefore have no means of getting around.

So what do we do? Do we abandon them because there are fewer of them and the ratio of investment to humanitarian interest is not high enough? Or do we say that our role is to go and help, whether there are 2, 12 or 50 of them?

There are undeniably unmet needs. Let’s take a simple example. I was talking to you earlier about winter. We are going to distribute heating equipment in a Hromada, which is the equivalent of a community of municipalities, and which is not taken into account at all in humanitarian coordination systems. Why is this? Because it’s harder to get to and there are fewer beneficiaries, so it’s less attractive to NGOs with substantial resources who, as a result, can’t find enough people to help!

We are going to intervene, despite the difficulty of access, because it is an action that corresponds to our capacities. There is a very good humanitarian coordination system in place to avoid duplication and ensure coordination, which can sometimes be frustrating and blocking. For example, for cash assistance (targeted cash distribution), there is a humanitarian rotation system. In each zone, all the NGOs interested in distributing cash aid (Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance) come together. There’s a rotation system that stipulates that one NGO intervenes in such and such an area, then it’s the turn of another NGO, and so on, so that everyone can participate.

The number of humanitarian actors varies from region to region. But if there are 25 players in one area, we have to wait for the other 24 to pass through before our turn comes around again. When we have money to spend and we’re in a hurry, this can be a real challenge. However, despite this system working, some zones are still left out.

To conclude, our strategy at Solidarités International is very clear, and it’s a good thing because donors like ECHO from the European Union are asking for this type of organisation. We want to continue to be frontliners. That doesn’t mean going to the front line as such, under the bombs. We don’t save people immediately, as MSF does with war surgery. Nevertheless, we get as close as possible to the front line when humanitarian needs dictate and security conditions allow. We work every day to make this possible and continue to invest in our security to ensure that we can operate in these areas.

AB: If we consider all the NGOs present in Ukraine, how is an organization like Solidarités International perceived in its modus operandi, and are there many NGOs that intervene on behalf of populations close to the front line?

MN: I’m glad you asked the question, because it’s clearly something that Solidarités International is recognized for. Few organizations have this positioning, few international NGOs can officially claim to be frontline, “frontliner”, and actually go into the field in areas close to the front line, or in any case directly affected by the conflict. Today, we intervene in areas where other organizations no longer go at all.

When I say this, I don’t mean that we are taking ill-considered risks, because we will never take such risks. The priority, as I always tell my teams, is your safety, followed by responding to humanitarian needs. We don’t send our teams where we think they can’t be sent. Instead, we put in place the necessary means to carry out a safety analysis which enables us to know that we can intervene by reducing the risk to a level we call the “residual risk”, which is acceptable.

In the Kharkiv region, for example, Solidarités International is clearly recognized as a particularly active organization for populations at risk near the front, intervening in areas where very few actors want to go. We really want to continue in this direction, not for any kind of glory, but because access to the most vulnerable populations is at the very heart of our humanitarian mission.

AB: Is there a mechanism for coordinating humanitarian NGOs, and how does it work?

MN: NGOs are coordinated through the NGO platform, which brings together a very large number of NGOs. It’s a very inclusive initiative, encompassing not only international but also national NGOs. There are over a hundred organizations involved. Work is being carried out on many subjects.

There is an advocacy working group that reports to the platform, enabling us to take our messages up to the highest level, either directly via the NGO platform with ministries, or via the HCT (Humanitarian Coordination Team), which then relays them to the relevant bodies. NGOs are also represented on the HCT, with I believe four international NGOs and four national NGOs sitting on it.

AB: Are there any players other than NGOs in the Humanitarian Coordination Team?

MN: The United Nations, with which we are associated, gives us a consultative voice. In other words, it’s not the NGOs that take the decisions within the HCT, but we have this entry point that enables us to get our messages across.

What are our messages today? First and foremost, a clear need for funding. We also stress the importance of the Nexus (the link between humanitarian recovery and development), insisting on the need to act over several timeframes. There are also more administrative issues to consider. Recently, the Ukrainian government tightened visa controls, not specifically for humanitarians, but for anyone coming from abroad. This can sometimes complicate entry into the country for humanitarians, especially for certain nationalities. So we are lobbying in this direction.

We’re also lobbying on the issue of conscription. It’s difficult to adopt a clear-cut position on this issue, because on the one hand, we need to ensure that our male employees aged between 25 and 60 aren’t all conscripted and sent off to military service, otherwise we’d lose our capacity for action. On the other hand, we question the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government to decide for the population as it sees fit. This is a plea we make regularly. Another point we defend is the employment of people with disabilities.

As far as humanitarian access is concerned, we haven’t encountered any major difficulties. Some areas very close to the front line are totally off-limits due to the fighting and strategic Ukrainian or Russian positions, which makes access impossible. There are areas a little further away, where prior authorization is required. For example, when we go to Kherson, we have to inform the authorities that such and such an organization wishes to carry out an activity there, which is also a question of responsibility. For most of the areas in which we operate, access is mainly conditioned by security, with no significant administrative obstacles.

AB: How would you like to conclude?

MN: We want to achieve something good here. Solidarités International started with an urgent response to needs, and we were really among the first organizations in the field, recognized for this. Now, our aim is to convince our donors that we are capable of proposing well-structured, quality-based actions.

Of course, we’re not perfect, and we’re still in the process of structuring ourselves to achieve optimum performance. However, we are committed to continuous improvement, both in terms of the quality of what we do and how we do it. We need to monitor our actions, make sure that the impact is real, and offer our technical and financial partners an adapted and effective project that reflects thoughtful work carried out by experts.

We will seek to innovate in our approaches, particularly in the Shelter sector, by experimenting with more advanced methods. Similarly, in the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) sector, we will be seeking to integrate our interventions with health and education to create more integrated solutions.

I insist on this point, because it is what makes Solidarités International special in Ukraine. We want to promote this approach, seeking to do less but better. As Country Director, I have no ambition to be the biggest NGO. What interests me is to refocus our programming on areas where we know we excel and where we can offer something effective, while reinforcing the image of Solidarités International.

We will be looking to innovate our approaches, particularly in the shelter sector, by experimenting with more advanced methods. Similarly, in the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) sector, we will be seeking to integrate our interventions with health and education to create more integrated solutions.

I insist on this point, because it’s what makes Solidarités in Ukraine unique. We want to promote this approach, seeking to do less but better. As country director, I have no ambition to be the biggest NGO. What interests me is to refocus our programming on areas where we know we excel and where we can offer something effective and meaningful, while reinforcing the image of Solidarités International.

 

Interview with Mathieu Nabot, Country Director in Ukraine for Solidarités International.

To visit the Solidarités International website.

 

I invite you to read these interviews and articles published in the edition :

• Towards a contagious humanitarian “domino effect” ?
• The challenges of a revolution in progress: digital data management for humanitarian and development aid. Interview with Martin Noblecourt, from CartONG
• Lebanon, Gaza, Iran, and now what ? A personal interview with Antoine Basbous, director of the Observatoire du Monde Arabe.
• Summary: “Falling short ? Humanitarian funding and reform”
• Solidarity with Armenian students.