The aim of the event was to reflect on this issue together and to (re)connect with citizens’ movements, activists and the ‘climate generation’, who are all key players in the current transformations, as they will be in the future. The idea was to step outside our own silos and reconnect with society, which ties in with Hugo Slim’s view that the climate crisis is forcing us, as humanitarians, to rethink our paradigm: “Climate is not simply one more ‘issue’ that humanitarians must add to their ever-expanding list of cross-cutting priorities. Now, it is a constant and rapidly emerging global disaster with universal reach. Our sense of intersectionality needs to be reversed. The climate emergency will not intersect with other areas: instead, everything will intersect with climate change. This is a whole new paradigm for humanitarians, and we need to urgently reframe our vision and approach “[1] .

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AMONG AID ORGANISATIONS…

Over the course of the three days of exchange and debate, many testimonies highlighted the tensions experienced by aid sector professionals who sometimes suffer due to their feeling of powerlessness, their inability to contribute to real change and sometimes their inability to remain consistent with their values. They are witness to the ever-increasing impact of crises on already fragile populations. At the same time, they see the impact of climate change, which is becoming increasingly violent, as well as the different ways in which ecosystems are being degraded (pollution, natural resource depletion, biodiversity loss, etc.). In the face of all this, the responses currently being implemented by the aid system seem derisory, given their inability to really deal with existing problems… Unfortunately, attempts to transform the sector are faced with the inertia of institutions.

Organisations give priority to their growth and their position in the “aid market” – a sector that has become competitive – over the need to ask questions of themselves or to take a political stance (see the article by Bertrand Bréqueville in this issue). As a result, there is little recognition on their part of the need to consider changes to the development model. It is a model that is implicitly promoted via the exportation of the Western model of society, and it is also the model on which aid organisations depend. Under the guise of neutrality, the sector’s discourse does not take inequalities into account as the main factor contributing to vulnerability, and thus sidesteps the political analysis that action requires.

So how can we reinvent humanitarian aid in a way that is compatible with planetary limits, that meets the challenge of “climate collapse” highlighted by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres in September 2023, and helps to transform our societies, as demanded in particular by younger generations – whether in the North or the South (see the article by Johana Bretou-Klein)? These are the questions that need to be debated within organisations and networks if we are to invent a politically (re)engaged form of aid, capable of tackling the root causes of problems, but also of identifying and denouncing political irresponsibility and dead ends. We need an aid sector that reconnects with societal dynamics and transforms itself radically so that it does not contribute to the problems it claims to be countering.

Although this desire for change seems to be shared by a large number of aid sector professionals, who are themselves activists and are aware of the need for change, they struggle to find forums for debate. They do not feel listened to, which leads to a feeling of powerlessness and ethical tensions.

The sector also seems reluctant to support citizen-based movements related to the issue of climate change or the migration policy crisis, two issues that are nevertheless directly linked to humanitarian issues. In France, with the exception of a few counter-examples, such as the climate justice campaign, L’Affaire du siècle (signed by certain humanitarian NGOs), and belated support for SOS Méditerranée, humanitarian actors do not generally take part in this type of campaign. Similarly, they seem reluctant to position themselves clearly in support of organisations in the South, even though it is difficult to make generalizations and, of course, there are differences in positioning between organisations. The promises of the Grand Bargain (2016) have been slow to materialise, causing tensions between organisations in the South and the North, but also within certain organisations that are stuck in their economic and governance model. At a deeper level, this raises questions about representations and sometimes conceals hints of neo-colonialism, or even racism…

Ultimately, the cognitive dissonance of activists who are unable to act in accordance with their values and contribute to change leads to tension and suffering on an individual level. Some even add that it can be difficult to adopt and express activist points of view within humanitarian organisations. They criticise organisational cultures that no longer encourage people to take a stand on these issues. Many organisations struggle to change their attitudes and how they operate to bring about real change. By confining themselves to the role of operators, they do not take part in discussions aimed at overhauling a system that has run out of steam or in the fundamental public debates that are taking place.

… REFLECTING A SOCIETY IN THE THROES OF CHANGE

These solidarity professionals and activists are merely relays for highly topical societal and global issues that resonate within their own organisations. And yet, the questions that run through the whole of society are so numerous and so crucial that they call at the very least for some political reflection, or even a certain level of mobilisation.

Among these issues, obviously, is the global climate crisis, which is causing a great deal of eco-anxiety, particularly among the younger generation, some of whom are doing everything they can to raise awareness in society[2]. This eco-anxiety is also affecting humanitarian and development workers, who observe, equally powerless, political inaction in the face of the climate crisis. And yet, in response to this growing concern, “action and engagement would seem to be the best remedies” (see next article).

The eco-anxiety that certain people feel has led them to campaign for more global issues. Climate change, and the probability that the number of crises with a major humanitarian impact is going to increase exponentially, call into question our model of society based on extractivism and the destruction of the living world. The climate crisis and our unsustainable model of society primarily affect women and girls, who are the most numerous victims of this disastrous system and its climatic consequences. And yet, they are often in the best position to provide solutions, as they are more focused on protecting the living world and the ethics of care[3] , as highlighted by ecofeminist movements. In addition to these movements, there are those who campaign in favour of organisations from the Global South, mutual aid, participation and horizontal citizenship within society, even in times of crisis (see the article by Tin Tin Htar Myint in this issue).

These individuals and movements are calling for relations of power and domination to be radically revised. But institutions do not appear to be able to take these demands into account and begin the much-needed transformation of the way we operate. As a result, the gap is widening between activists – who are increasingly radical and often angry – and a system that offers no vision for the future and is neither able nor willing to reform itself.

BECOMING AWARE OF THE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE AID SYSTEM

A number of factors can explain why the sector finds it difficult to change and the fact that the global issues mentioned above are reproduced within organisations themselves. Through the bureaucratisation, professionalisation, technicalisation and managerialisation of its activities and missions, the humanitarian sector has joined the race for growth. What is more, by not taking a stand on certain issues that are the source of injustices and systemic crises, humanitarian organisations run the risk of becoming accomplices in a deleterious system at war with the living world.

In his book L’Humanitaire au service du néolibéralisme (Charles Léopold Mayer, 2021), Bertrand Bréqueville shows that the aid sector takes part in the continued existence of global neoliberalism. Due to the reproduction of harmful economic models, the humanitarian vision has been transformed into a market vision, where saving the victims of crises is no longer a question of giving but is the result of a new ideology: “humanitarianism”. This transformation has inevitably led to the de-politicisation of humanitarian aid, a move away from its original purpose, a loss of meaning and less solidarity.

Furthermore, it has to be said that most organisations in the aid sector reproduce the dominant models of our societies, including patriarchy. For example, the boards of international aid organisations are still dominated by white men over 50 years of age, even though the majority of staff are women[4] (only 35% of directors are women) and are non-white. Programmes sometimes include a gender dimension, but rarely support transformative and feminist approaches, and therefore endorse patriarchal models most of the time. Faced with this situation, ecofeminist and activist movements within humanitarian organisations are trying to raise awareness and change field practices that are considered destructive and neo-colonial.

International aid that is primarily directed towards former colonies is criticised by some as a vestige of colonialism. NGOs are not immune to neo-colonial rhetoric, and some actors believe that aid needs to be decolonised[5]. It is undeniable that certain states and organisations in the North want to impose a way of doing things without taking into account the opinions and positions of local actors. This paternalistic attitude poses problems, as is evident in the above-mentioned difficulty in implementing the Grand Bargain commitment to achieve aid that is “as local as possible”.

Faced with these issues, some humanitarian organisations will probably argue that the principle of neutrality dictates that they should avoid such political considerations, and that their mandate requires that they should not take part in societal debates. As such, the way they understand neutrality probably needs to be challenged, and their mandate probably needs to evolve. Otherwise, there is a risk that they will cut themselves off from civil society, which is where they come from, and that they will become obsolete in a changing world.

TAKING ACTION TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE STATUS QUO

One thing is clear: the aid sector as it has developed over the last few decades is running out of steam. Following the example of the “Scientist Rebellion” movement[6], the aid sector could call into question a number of supposedly unalterable paradigms and principles, and decide to join current dynamics. It could bring a unique perspective due to its proximity to the most vulnerable people.

Without wanting to be too pessimistic, in the future, humanitarian needs are only going to get worse, for a variety of reasons, most of them caused by climate change. Given this, the challenge is not just to find more funding: it is to rethink the power relationships within the aid system (whether at the individual or institutional level), the actors involved, relations with civil society, aid narratives, etc. The aim should also be to participate in the transformation of our societies, which is obviously not easy because the solutions have yet to be invented. In this respect, the discussions at the Spring School outlined two main avenues: building bridges with other civil society movements and encouraging the development of alternative thinking.

Following on from the appeals made both at the Spring School and by Hugo Slim, humanitarian organisations should engage in dialogue with citizens’ climate movements and with organisations campaigning to protect the living world, whether in the North or South, whether young or not so young. This could help them to increase their effectiveness and very probably would help them to be more coherent. They should also work to remove the obstacles that still prevent genuine aid localisation and the transformation of relations between humanitarian organisations and local organisations.

There is also an urgent need to encourage reflection within organisations and to create safe spaces for debate where individuals can share their questions, discuss the inconsistencies they see, and sketch out avenues for transformation. By coming together, they will be able to support each other, combine their strengths and increase their chances of building alternatives.

The shared desire to move forward and the passionate speeches on climate change, gender and the need to overhaul the system during the 2023 edition of the Spring School show that there is mobilisation, commitment and activism among individuals involved in the aid sector which is just waiting to (re)emerge. Optimism and a desire for change do exist, and these should not be ignored. Otherwise we run the risk of contributing to disenchantment and hastening the end of a system that is nonetheless useful. We need to build on this momentum to bring about change and devise new forms of solidarity that are adapted to new challenges and the upheavals to come.

[1] Slim Hugo, “Humanitarians and the Climate Emergency – The Ethical, Practice and Cultural Challenges”, 28 June 2023, Global Public Policy Institute: https://gppi.net/2023/06/28/humanitarians-and-the-climate-emergency

[2] Hickman, C. et al. (2021), “Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey”, The Lancet, volume 5, issue 12 : https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00278- 3/fulltext#%20

^[3] Claudia Sofía Durán Cárdenas, Les conflits éthiques de l’aide humanitaire à l’aune de l’éthique du
care, Philosophie, 2020 : https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-03188529.

[4] État des lieux de l’intégration du genre dans les organisations françaises de solidarité internationale, Coordination Sud, December 2016, p. 25 (https://www.coordinationsud.org/document-ressource/etude-etat-lieux-de-lintegration-genre-organisations-francaises-de-solidarite-internationale/).

[5] Peace Direct report published in 2021: Time to Decolonise Aid – Insights and lessons from a global consultation (https://www.peacedirect.org/publications/timetodecoloniseaid/).

[6] https://scientifiquesenrebellion.fr/raison-d-etre/