The Forum Espace Humanitaire (FEH) brought together on 30 January 2026 at Science Po Saint-Germain-en-Laye around fifty humanitarian NGO leaders around the question “Lost in transition? Historical, civic and future-oriented perspectives on a humanitarian sector in danger”.

Having taken part in this Forum, as in the previous ones for more than 10 years, and given the gravity of the current situation for the humanitarian sector, it seems useful to share with our readers information and reflection on it while respecting the rule adopted by the FEH consisting in speaking freely without the speakers and their remarks being publicly quoted.

Regarding the title chosen by the organizers “Lost in transition”, several translations into French are possible: Lost in the period of transition, or also disoriented, even adrift, which convey well that the humanitarian sector has entered a critical phase of its history.

In Davos, Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada, declared “We are in the middle of a rupture, not in the middle of a transition” and I believe this is right. However, humanitarians must take on their transition within the geopolitical rupture of the world order and its multiple consequences, including the fall in public funding!

In this editorial, I propose first to present the 10 main questions that I retained from this Forum. This is not a report, and this overview is not exhaustive of the subject or of the debates that took place.

Then, I invite you to return to three areas of “rupture” currently under way: the multifaceted geopolitical shock, the shock to humanitarian funding, to access for aid and to international humanitarian law and, as a consequence, the ongoing project for the evolution of our review Défis Humanitaires.

A – The 10 key questions of the Forum: summary, analysis, commentary.

1. Lost, disoriented, adrift? We are moving from a period of triumphant right of interference (1991 UN Resolution 688 on Iraq and the protection of the Kurdish population), from the multiplication of Western interventions (Somalia, Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan) and those of multiple so-called UN peace operations (Iraq, Bosnia, DRC) to a questioning of the rules established since 1945 and to a brutal fall in the funding of humanitarian and development aid. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the second election of Donald Trump are the two determining causes. Faced with this “geopolitical tsunami” and the retreat of NGO capacities of more than a decade, doing nothing or “keeping a low profile” would be one of the riskiest options! If humanitarian history over the long term has always been punctuated by crises, this one is equivalent to a tsunami.

historical coverage coordinated humanitarian plan 2018-2026 ©Financial Tracking Service

2.The “humanitarian ship in the eye of the cyclone” with devastating winds changing direction, to take up the image of one speaker. To save all or part of the ship and the crew, it will be necessary to adapt to winds, currents and waves while maintaining the final course of saving lives. “The goal is the path.” I repeat, doing nothing, “keeping a low profile” while waiting for it to pass is certainly a serious risk to avoid. Thus, for example, such NGO will lose 50% of its budget in 3 years! If NGOs financed entirely or almost entirely by individuals escape the fall in their funding, they do not escape the upheaval of the ecosystem. On the very day of the FEH, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, was alerting Member States to a risk of “imminent financial collapse”! It is the entire multilateral system that is at risk and which is de facto already being challenged by Donald Trump’s “Peace Council”. However, the humanitarian needs of 300 million human beings are still there and guide the mission of humanitarian organizations, which must adapt, reform or revolutionize themselves depending on their respective situations and choices.

3. Commitment and efficiency. The consensus on humanitarian aid responding to the vital needs of populations in danger once again does not prevent the debate between the priority of commitment and values and the priority of the efficiency of aid. This debate often brings out the distinction between advocacy actors and those of aid action in the field. But, frankly, the only response that seems to me to be valid is indeed that of effective commitment that optimizes every euro to save lives. Everything lies in the dynamic balance between the two approaches, between the purpose and the means of achieving it. It appears clearly that organizations that primarily prioritize action and those that mainly carry advocacy do not give the same priority to the two terms of the equation. But is advocacy not at the service of aid, and do these not need to plead their cause ?

4. Humanitarian action and civil society. Usually, the support of civil society is expressed through donations, volunteering and support for the major causes carried by humanitarian organizations. Some consider that associative freedoms are receding and are threatened, while others emphasize the weakness of the narrative of associations. What is certain is that public opinion evolves according to the environment and that today issues of security, defense, social model, national cohesion and international security particularly concern it. Just as states governed by the rule of law, in France and in Europe in particular, must face growing threats, they will have to strengthen their governance, their power and their unity in order to exist, mobilize and resist. Let us not be mistaken, the nation-state is not an NGO. Humanitarians must also rethink their place, their legitimacy and their communication in a changing, disrupted and risky environment.

5. Politicization and humanitarian principles. Some think that politicization is the necessary response to political attacks, while others consider that humanitarian principles (neutrality, impartiality, independence) constitute the best posture in all cases. What nevertheless seems certain is that the exacerbation of both political and geopolitical cleavages will directly affect humanitarian organizations. It is a dilemma and a matter of conscience. For my part, I believe that the response is twofold. On the one hand, we have a greater need for political and geopolitical analysis capacities. On the other hand, we must be and remain humanitarians. The choice is simple. Faced with a political injunction, responding with a political position will identify us as a political actor and will reduce our credibility and the humanitarian space that must bring people together broadly and place itself above partisan choices. Humanitarian action is neither right nor left and must bring together as widely as possible. This is exactly what we do in crisis areas where we act in the name of the impartiality of aid. Making a political choice is of course possible for any humanitarian, but then within a political organization. I believe that the principles of the Red Cross of Henri Dunant are more relevant than ever.

6. Decolonization, de-Westernization of aid. If aid is no one’s privilege and if proximity to affected people is the primary link of mutual aid, it is also true that funding and international aid organizations come essentially from the developed world, Western for the most part. Incidentally, humanitarians consider that their action is a duty of humanity outside of any intention to colonize anyone. These few lines will not put an end to this debate. However, I suggest two attitudes in the face of this question. The first, which has always fundamentally been mine, is to consider that where we act, outside France, we are not at home but at their home. Let us add that if universalism considers without distinction the humanity of each person, it must simultaneously respect the natural diversity of humankind, cultures, languages, religions, ways of life, ethnicities, in particular minorities, the sovereignty of these populations over their lands, which is a strong response to any attempt at colonization. Like everyone, I know that the history of humanity is more complex, that confrontation between the planet’s co-tenants is regular, but these existential reference points exist as useful and just markers. The second reflection is to consider that if the history of colonization in its diversity is also universal in time and space, we must today consider this question in the light of the ruptures under way and the risks of vassalization, including our own.

7. Humanitarian action and geopolitics. This subject was not on the Forum’s agenda, but I raise it because I believe it is decisive. Let us return to the formula we can take up “act local, think global”, that is, the relationship between macro and micro. We humanitarians would need to understand well the major role that wars and United Nations operations have played for decades in the existence and development of humanitarian organizations, both through public funding and through private support largely fueled by the media. This observation in no way calls into question the validity of their action to save lives, but it allows us to understand that the fall in humanitarian funding from ODA coming from Member States of the European Union with governments of the right as well as of the left, even before Donald Trump’s decisions, is indeed of a geopolitical nature. The priorities of States, at least in Europe, are today more oriented towards the defense of freedom, independence, sovereignty and therefore towards security, but also towards safeguarding our social model. As Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, rightly says: “When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourselves.”

8. Humanitarian action, war and Ukraine. This question was also not on the FEH agenda and I add it as a continuation of the geopolitics linked to it. Apart from disasters and major pandemics, humanitarian action is mainly due to the consequences of war, most often in poor countries where populations quickly fall into precariousness and threat to their very lives. Think of Sudan, the DRC or Yemen today. Certainly, one cannot address all subjects in a single Forum. But let us not forget the reality that challenges us. According to the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross), the number of conflicts continues to increase: there were nearly 130 in 2024, twice as many as 15 years ago. Among these conflicts, around twenty have lasted for more than two decades. Thus, at the time I write these lines, more than 204 million people live in a conflict zone. Needs are increasing, resources are decreasing, what are we doing to provide aid and to influence the concerned decision-makers who are currently retreating? Back to the reality of the urgency of crises.

9. Degradation of debates. Quite rightly, one of the speakers highlighted the general degradation of debates, of analysis, of nuance. I will add the growing phenomenon of disinformation, propaganda, so-called alternative truth. We must keep this clearly in mind and ourselves practice discernment, foresight, projection and ensure benevolence among ourselves, which does not prevent either debates or disagreements. This is precisely one of the axes of reflection of the revamped Défis Humanitaires project.

10. Entirely provisional conclusion. The environment is changing radically and yet humanitarian action is more necessary than ever in a more populated world that is entering a period of strategic conflictuality that will affect many countries and populations, as in the time of the “Cold War”. We must cross the desert as well as the storm and renew ourselves to carry out the humanitarian mission, here and elsewhere, on the “Land of Men” dear to the humanist Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.

B- Focus sur la logique des ruptures en cours et le que faire.

Two major events alone summarize the rupture and are at the center of the geopolitical cyclone that is shaking and recomposing our world.

The military invasion by Russia – a member of the UN Security Council – of Ukraine, if it is a failure for everyone, signifies that a dispute can now once again be settled by the force of arms. Ukraine will enter on 22 February 2026 its 5th year of this war in Europe, which could perhaps spread to other territories of this continent without the support of the United States being certain. War is also a humanitarian issue because of its human and material consequences. Are humanitarians ready for a possible extension of war territories?

The second election of Donald Trump in the United States has since January 2025 caused a vast and profound earthquake in that country and throughout the world. The code of international relations under the aegis of the UN is now replaced by the law of the strongest “deal”. In the space of a decree, Donald Trump has annihilated humanitarian and development aid through the more or less equal law of trade and exchanges. To better understand, one must read the new “National Security Strategy of the United States”. Without prejudging what follows, I recall this sentence of Pierre Hassner, historian of international relations, who declared during the invasion of Iraq by the United States in March 2003 that “the complexity of the world will take its revenge”!

The abrupt and strong fall in humanitarian and development funding is of course the signal of a change of era and of priorities. Let us recall that if the weight of the United States as the world’s leading funder has a major impact, this trend is just as much the result of the Member States of the European Union and the OECD. The only good news to date is the confirmation of the humanitarian budget of the European Commission with ECHO for a 2026 budget of 1.9 billion euros and 415 million of reserve funds for emergencies. In Davos, Commissioner Hadja Lahbib advocated “new alliances” towards companies, investors, innovation actors in order to ensure new financing models. The avenues are numerous provided one has conviction and will. The main stake now lies in the next budget of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) of the European Union for the period 2028-2034. It is up to us to act!

Rising to the Humanitarian Challenges.

These ruptures will trigger many others in chain, according to the domino effect, with global consequences for humanitarian and development aid as well as for the 17 Sustainable Development Goals 2015-2030.

In this context, Défis Humanitaires has launched a project of adaptation, evolution, even change, so that its monthly online review better responds to the ruptures under way, to humanitarian imperatives and to the expectations of readers. This project is carried by its Committee of Experts, by its readers and by the ongoing debates.

This project, to which we invite you to associate yourselves, integrates the following evolutions:

• A new media-press-type layout to gain impact.
• Quick search functionalities for articles by author and by theme.
• The publication of “briefs” on current affairs.
• An evolution of the editorial line.
• A strengthening of our editorial team to achieve this.

In this new issue of Défis Humanitaires, you will discover articles on the crisis in Syria, on a new innovative tool the Solis bot, an analysis of humanitarian funding of Official Development Assistance, reader testimonials and this editorial.

If these articles are useful to you, if you enjoy reading our independent and free review, you can give it the means to do better and more by making a donation today (faireundon) deductible by two thirds (66%) of your taxes thanks to the tax receipt that we will send you.

I warmly thank you for your support, which supports our volunteer work to better inform you. Thank you.

Alain Boinet.