“When a humanitarian aid engineer arrives in a village, his vision is to provide access to what is needed, like drilling a deep borehole to find water; the vision of the villagers is to protect and welcome rainwater in relation to the surrounding woods, and to access and contribute to their rights.”
Aruna and Bunker Roy, Barefoot College – Discussion in Tilonia (Rajasthan), 10 September 2023.

—

On 24 August 2022, Ukrainian civil society organisations published an ‘Open letter to international donors and NGOs who want to genuinely help Ukraine’¹. This was a letter from a civil society directly involved in a war, but other civil societies from European and African countries (to name but two) have been involved in campaigns before and since, in a context of multiple global crises. Some, like Achille Mbembé², see this as an expression of the decolonisation process that is under way, a process reinforced and exposed by the global ecological crisis, which requires international relations to be reconfigured, particularly between France and Africa. Others, like Edgard Morin, see it as the result of “[…] disjunctive and unilateral thinking that is incapable of linking knowledge to understand the realities of the world” which is evidence of a profound crisis in political thinking, with the risk that we are going to become a “society of submission”³.

A call for relations to change between international and local organisations

The Open Letter from Ukrainian civil society contains four requests, with the overall objective of ensuring “that local civil societies have the resources and power to respond to the short-term and long-term needs in our communities”. This is similar to Workstream 2 of the 2016 Grand Bargain⁴ (“More support and funding tools for local and national responders”). However, more than seven years after this initiative was launched at the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul, it has to be said that this promise has still not been honoured. And, more often than not, the Open Letter from Ukrainian civil society was met with an embarrassed silence, including within European humanitarian civil society. The first of the four demands is for a drastic reduction in bureaucracy, because “small organisations need unrestricted flexible funding, provided rapidly: we can demonstrate our legitimacy in other ways, through our actions on the ground and the validation of our peers, the networks that we belong to and the communities we serve”⁵. The second request is to let local civil society actors decide their priorities and how they wish to act in solidarity, quoting Hugo Slim’s article that argues that solidarity should take precedence over neutrality⁶. Slim stresses that “the creativity of locally-led aid must not be smothered and marginalized by the big beasts of the UN, Red Cross, and NGO world”⁷. The third demand concerns the tendency of international NGOs to develop narratives that facilitate their own access to funding (“Stop trying to speak on our behalf and stop controlling narratives in ways that advance your own institutional interests!”). It asks them to allow local populations and civil societies to develop their own narratives and give them access to more direct and sustainable funding. Finally, the fourth and last request (“Stop trying to build our ‘capacity’”) refers international NGOs to the need to strengthen their own capacities in terms of knowledge of local contexts, partnerships and appropriate methods of intervention; in particular by drawing on the experience and know-how of local civil societies.

This call to transform partnership relations was principally understood as a challenge to the principle of neutrality, and it is significant that the other three requests by Ukrainian civil society only led to good intentions and rather vague recommendations from most of the aid platforms in Europe, such as VOICE and CONCORD, and in the United States. While it is legitimate to question the lack of equitable treatment by humanitarian organisations of civilians from the different parties to the conflict, Rony Brauman rightly points out that the duty of neutrality applies first and foremost to the belligerents⁸ and that what is at stake here is the impartiality of the assistance provided to civilians by humanitarian responders. Indeed, is it neutral to join forces with a local civil society in order to respond more effectively to a humanitarian crisis? And should the concept of neutrality not be set aside in favour of impartiality, with partners respecting each other despite their differences, and pursuing a common goal and approach, including through joint advocacy initiatives? One of the reference articles on the VOICE website in June 2023⁹ concludes that international NGOs could adapt their interventions to the context by localising aid, partnering with organisations that support civilians and the military, while investing more in monitoring programmes, identifying risks and controlling the delivery of aid to the civilian population. However, it is not certain that this corresponds to the demands of Ukrainian civil society; on the contrary, there is a significant risk that humanitarian work will continue unchanged, with additional administrative constraints for all organisations.

The limits and contradictions of international humanitarian aid

The difficult situation of international NGO staff should be underlined. They are caught between, on the one hand, wanting to establish programmes based on equitable partnerships, and on the other hand, having to identify calls for proposals and respond urgently in order to contribute to their organisations’ growth-based economic model, thus consolidating their dominant position. But this is increasingly untenable. Although some donors, such as the Global Fund¹⁰, have developed “community-based approaches”, we should not underestimate the possibility of capacity being transferred in order to gain greater control over funds and thus of actors coming together in significantly sized NGOs capable of meeting donor requirements. The resulting frustrations are the same as those that prompted the Open Letter from Ukrainian civil society, or that were expressed following the Grand Bargain by other platforms, such as NEAR¹¹. The term ‘Grand Bargain’ is consistent with the terminology used in relation to human resources, due diligence, risk assessment and management, the development and implementation of guidelines and handbooks, strategic management and so on. It keeps on growing, because more and more programme monitoring and management tools are always needed in order to stay in the race for funding and institutional visibility. This race, which Bertrand Bréqueville¹² describes as ‘neo-liberal humanitarianism’, takes place at the expense of discussions about an organisation’s political orientations, about an ethical approach to partnerships, or about the choice of specific operational practices. It is no longer possible to think in terms of solidarity. There is a disconnect between the ideal of solidarity from the organisation’s original mandate and the reality of economic productivity that is needed for the organisation’s security. The ‘saving lives’ message – which is presented as the ultimate guiding principle and purpose – allows the system to be maintained without being challenged, and even reinforces existing power dynamics¹³. This pragmatic approach limits the ability to take a stance on human rights and anti-colonialism, the response to the global climate and ecological crisis, the transformation of gender relations and, ultimately, the need to establish a new kind of partnership.

Nonetheless, there is increasing pressure from donors for international NGOs to comply with regulations and control security risks. For example, measures to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism have been passed on to NGOs, particularly in France. This gave rise to an appeal to the French Council of State, whose ruling in February 2023¹⁴ rejected the French Development Agency’s requirement that NGOs screen final beneficiaries before the delivery of aid. However, the lack of enthusiasm among NGOs for open communication and advocacy that raises ethical issues, and the fact that some can benefit from humanitarian exemptions, considerably limited the impact of this action and revealed the difficulty of working collectively both here and abroad. And, while many humanitarian NGOs now devote more than 50% of their funding to development, the controls they have to apply in order to keep their resources not only entail considerable risks for their teams in the field, but also cast doubt on their independence from donors and on their desire to establish partnerships.

In this context, in order to maintain the ability to take action, should we not increase funding to meet growing needs, including funding for partners? Humanitarian needs have been rising steadily since at least 2015, and the United Nations Security Council announced on 14 September that the amount needed in 2023 to help more than 249 million people will be $55 billion (in reference to the Global Humanitarian Overview 2023, Mid-Year Update)¹⁵. The fact that most of this amount has not yet been covered (between 25% and 30% according to estimates, mainly through the five donors who ‘traditionally’ cover more than 60% of the aid available: the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan and France) led to a statement to ask for even greater involvement of the private sector and the increased use of technology (there is a consensus among the states who have expressed themselves about greater use of satellites, drones and artificial intelligence), while also expanding the number of contributing countries. The representative of the European Union pointed out that logistics account for over 60% of the volume of emergency humanitarian expenditure, and only a few countries underlined the urgent need for the private sector to respect humanitarian principles: humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence (for example, by not being directly involved in a humanitarian response in order to avoid conflicts of interest). Even fewer countries mentioned the participation of local people in humanitarian responses, but without specifying how this should take place, while only one country called for humanitarian architecture to be revised with the ICRC and the UN.

During the Spring School on Humanitarian Aid (UPH) organised by Groupe URD at the beginning of June 2023, there were many questions about the volume of humanitarian aid in relation to long-term solidarity, about the overlooked achievements of local actors, and about the consequences that more humanitarian aid could have, including on the planet. The discussions focused on the need to transform the partnership relations of globalised humanitarian organisations, who have more funds, but have become less subversive. These organisations are asked to do more, but to think less about complexity, which is still often seen as a waste of time in the face of emergencies. It is this model that needs to be reconsidered. For example, should we always respond to a crisis? If the ambition is to maintain visibility and take decisions at the headquarters level rather than establish partnerships in the field, then we need to think twice. This is not to play down the need for assistance but rather to highlight the number of responses that are properly documented and can actually show that they have been effective. How many local actors are already involved in running operations with tangible results and do not need any external intervention (or could possibly benefit from remote support, for example in fund-raising?) How many programmes today are not sustainable for the planet and therefore for future generations? The idea is not to oppose ‘saving lives here and now’ and the future of the planet. Rather, it is to question the idea that ‘humanitarian considerations should come before all other considerations’. Such an assertion delegitimises action that is focused on respect for human rights, gender inequality and disability, for example. The timeframes of emergency relief and dialogue are not irreconcilable. Instead, they constitute an optimal combination of the present and a sustainable future. As pointed out by Bunker and Aruna Roy, the founders of Barefoot College, an Indian organisation¹⁶, there are at least three complementary and interdependent ways of improving the situation of people in extremely vulnerable situations, both in development and humanitarian contexts. One is through concrete action, but where we consider decision-making processes with communities as being equally essential and constructive as the technical response. Another is through advocacy for societal change, rather than remaining supposedly neutral. And another is through research and, above all, reciprocal learning. In a context of recurring emergencies (episodes of drought and chronic malnutrition), social inequalities and extreme poverty, the vision of Barefoot College was to facilitate the establishment of an inclusive school with a children’s parliament and to train women to instal and maintain solar energy in their villages. This allowed them not only to become economically independent, but also to carry out their own projects and contribute to agro-ecology programmes and the fight against malnutrition with locally produced and prepared food, as well as improving access to healthcare and water, and contributing to the training of women from other regions of the world (thus forming a solidarity network). These women took effective action to defend human rights after young girls were subjected to violence in Rajasthan.

Today, the contribution of local actors is already changing the way in which international NGOs respond. At the grassroots level, the effectiveness of the early response from civil society, informal groups or minority communities, who are often overlooked, is well documented¹⁷. And at the national level, certain states do not want to be subjected to external aid, as was the case of Morocco who rejected offers of help from several governments after the earthquake that hit the south of the country this summer. The fact that more than 90% of field staff come from the country or region in which the NGO is operating in no way detracts from the multinational nature of these organisations. In the end, the major orientations and controls come from the headquarters, which is the real centre of operations.

The Core Humanitarian Standard¹⁸ is to be commended for taking into account the human right to a dignified life (and not just a saved life) and the participation of local communities in humanitarian response. However, standardisation of this kind is not without risk. It may not transform partnership relations, and may just lead to a minimum number of actions to be carried out, accompanied by key words such as ‘localisation’ and ‘community participation’, soon to be added to donor checklists. Or it could lead to a series of new monitoring criteria that will determine whether or not NGOs are eligible for funding. What gives organisations from wealthy countries, or who have adopted standards that they have helped to build and maintain, the right to validate the technical skills and control the democratic nature of the local organisations they support? Instead, what is needed is greater mutual accountability and genuine reciprocity, including in emergency contexts. Genuine solidarity based on reciprocity between international NGOs and local organisations will only be established once local organisations have been freed from economic constraints. And all organisations need to be reminded that they are committed to maximising their accountability to the people affected by their actions.

Promoting debate and restoring opportunities for exchange within and between organisations

An economic model is being promoted as the magic answer to all our problems, but, as Antonin Pottier points out, without taking into account the imperative need to include ecological and social challenges¹⁹. And new standards aim to include the issue of human rights more, without explicitly changing the basis of partnerships. Instead, should the priority not be to continue building a pact to overhaul global solidarity? Of course, this will include economic issues. But in order to clarify the intentions of those who promote the current economic model, there needs to be complementarity between actors and their means of intervention, with a view to ‘deglobalisation’. This would allow us to tackle the crisis of confidence that is affecting international solidarity, and the major consequences this can have, such as restricted access to populations, unsafe humanitarian workers, and projects with limited quality and coverage.

In today’s global context, in order to avoid the worst-case scenarios described by Xavier Ricard Lanata²⁰, (“resilient to the teeth, endless transition, war of the worlds”), and in order to rebuild a “way of living together on earth”, there is an urgent need to restore opportunities for exchange within and between organisations on the scenarios that exist for a viable future. We need discussion and contradictory debate instead of institutional pragmatism and its consequences, which are increasingly being felt. This was one of the key recommendations following the discussions at Groupe URD’s recent Spring School. Instead of a model that needs to be ‘scaled up’ (another expression related to the race for greater productivity), should we not start by deconstructing the current ways in which international aid is provided, and ensure that the themes of gender, decolonisation, localisation and climate are not absorbed into new guidelines, and integrated in order to maintain business as usual?

Xavier Ricard Lanata invites us to look ahead and “[become] rigorous, experienced dreamers”²¹. At one of Groupe URD’s previous Autumn Schools, we spoke with him about a heterotopia of cooperation: building future perspectives and projects together, with each other, during the ship crossing, between the promoters on the different shores thus joined. In this way, there would no longer be a centre and an intervention for the victims. It would be a way of overcoming the tension between the local and the global. A return to emergency preparedness and solidarity-based responses that take into account and accept the fragility and shared responsibility of a liveable earth.

1. An open letter to international donors and NGOs who want to genuinely help Ukraine”, 24 August 2022 (https://globalfundcommunityfoundations.org/news/an-open-letter-to-international-donors-and-ngos-who-want-to-genuinely-help-ukraine/)
2. Achille Mbembé, “Les nouvelles relations Afrique – France: relever ensemble les défis de demain”, October 2021 (https://www.vie-publique.fr/rapport/281834-nouvelles-relations-afrique-france-relever-ensemble-les-defis-de-demain).
3. Edgar Morin, “La crise française doit être située dans la complexité d’une polycrise mondiale”, Le Monde, 29 July 2023 (https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2023/07/28/edgar-morin-la-crise-francaise-doit-etre-situee-dans-la-complexite-d-une-polycrise-mondiale-et-dans-le-contexte-d-un-recul-des-democraties_6183657_3232.html).
4. IASC, Commitments by Workstream, 1 July 2017 (https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/system/files/2021-11/Commitments%20and%20core%20commitments%20by%20workstream.pdf).
5. Op. cit.
6. Hugo Slim, “Solidarity, Not Neutrality, Will Characterize Western Aid to Ukraine”, Ethics & International Affairs, 03 October 2022 (https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/online-exclusives/solidarity-not-neutrality-will-characterize-western-aid-to-ukraine)
7. Ibid.
8. “Rony Brauman, “En Ukraine, comme ailleurs, le droit humanitaire reste impuissant à cadrer la guerre”, Libération, 10 March 2022 (https://www.liberation.fr/idees-et-debats/rony-brauman-en-ukraine-comme-ailleurs-le-droit-humanitaire-reste-impuissant-a-cadrer-la-guerre-20220310_EZ23Q4XE2RHUPNPPL3IL7HBFBA/).
9. Hanna Miedviedieva (People In Need), “Neutrality in the humanitarian response in Ukraine”, VOICE, 29 June 2023 (https://voiceeu.org/publications/neutrality-in-the-humanitarian-response-in-ukraine-pin.pdf)
10. “Community Systems Strengthening – Allocation Period 2023-2025”, Technical Briefing Notes, Global Fund, 12 December 2022 (https://www.theglobalfund.org/media/6904/core_communitysystems_technicalbrief_fr.pdf)
11. https://www.near.ngo/policy
12. L’humanitaire sous l’emprise du néolibéralisme. Éditions Charles Léopold Mayer, 2021.
13. See, for example, the difficult response of international NGOs when the Taliban government banned women from working for aid agencies in Afghanistan on 24 December 2022. Very few organisations underlined the connection between defending access to healthcare and respecting women’s rights, in the name of a form of pragmatism that would allow them to continue saving lives.
14. “Case law database, French Council of State, 10 February 2023 (https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2023-02-10/461486)
15. United Nations, “Conseil de sécurité : le renforcement du partenariat public-privé, une option pour venir en aide à 249 millions de nécessiteux dans le monde”, UN Press, 14 September 2023 (https://press.un.org/fr/2023/cs15410.doc.htm).
16. https://www.barefootcollege.org/. Interview conducted on 10 September 2023 in Tilonia.
17. See for example: “Survivor and community-led response. Practical experience and learning”, Humanitarian Practice network, Number 84, May 2021 (https://odihpn.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/HPN_SCLR-Network-Paper_WEB.pdf).
18. https://spherestandards.org/humanitarian-standards/core-humanitarian-standard/
19. Concilier économie et écologie, Presses des Ponts, 2023.
20. Demain la planète. Quatre scénarios de déglobalisation, Presses Universitaires de France, 2021.
21. Ibid. 158-159: « rêveurs rigoureux, rompus à l’exercice ».