Writing a text about the future of humanitarian aid. My first impulse: this is going to be a gloomy text. The present of humanitarian aid leaves little room for optimism. Wars continue, people are dying in Sudan unnoticed by the world public, war is raging in Ukraine with no prospect of an end any time soon, and hunger is being deliberately used as a weapon in Gaza. Democracies that invoke human rights are openly violating them, while civil societies are tearing each other apart over conflicts instead of showing genuine empathy for all victims. Meanwhile, Germany is cutting its funding for humanitarian aid and at the same time abolishing asylum rights step by step. And all of this is happening at a time when the climate catastrophe is progressing inexorably and is already creating more need, more displacement and more suffering than the existing system can cope with.

Despite all these negative points, there is always light at the end of this seemingly ever-darkening tunnel.  

What comes to mind above all is that more and more people are interested in changing the situation, taking action themselves, and making a difference. People who don’t want to resign themselves to the status quo, but take action. Initiatives that take responsibility where traditional structures fail. A new focus on solidarity that shows that change is still possible.

Perhaps here, at the point of the half-brave, forward-looking smile: What does the present of humanitarian aid and disaster relief look like?

One thing is a fact: for years, we have had too few mobilizable, deployable resources for most disasters, especially the wars that are currently raging. In 2022, a large proportion of the traditional players in humanitarian emergency response were not prepared to go to Ukraine to help the civilian population directly. Donations of money and goods – yes. Supporting local partner organizations – as long as they operate within the framework of what is specified from outside. What we actually saw was an incredible number of grassroots organizations that formed spontaneously and provided support to the best of their abilities. This is not a romanticization or a call to “back to the roots”. The developments and lessons learned in recent decades are far too important to abandon. The question is rather: who do we integrate into international humanitarian aid and to what extent? If traditional actors are not ready for certain challenges, then we must promote the integration of those who are. This rethinking primarily refers to funding landscapes, which almost always require years of track records and sophisticated back-office structures.

It is also clear that not only are resources lacking, they are often not prepared for what is to come. Neither humanitarian aid nor civil protection are equipped for the challenges that climate change will bring. While civil protection units are still training for major emergencies based on the post-war model, there is a lack of ideas and innovations for protecting particularly vulnerable groups during periods of extreme heat. This is not a moral reproach to the existing actors. Climate change has not replaced old threats, it has added to them. But the traditional structures have neither the capacity nor the innovative strength to adapt to them in time.

Another point that has so far received little attention: Access to disaster relief is simply no longer up to date. It usually requires a rigid temporal and spatial commitment that excludes many people from the outset. When it comes to specialist training, loyalty to the organization is often more important than professional and operational suitability. This ignores the reality of many people’s lives and creates unnecessary hurdles. Civil protection is also lagging behind when it comes to inclusion. Those who are not fully fit for deployment have little chance of participating in other roles. This means that valuable commitment is left out.

What does the future of humanitarian aid and disaster relief look like?

In my opinion, we need a rethink on many levels, significantly more openness and a large portion of innovation. Commitment must not be allowed to come to nothing, but must be steered in a constructive direction. To achieve this, we must be prepared to involve new groups and initiatives as long as they adhere to humanitarian principles. We need access for people with specialist knowledge that fits in with their everyday lives and does not fall foul of traditional structures. We need to digitize education and training more in order to break down dependencies on time and place. We need to learn and practice genuine inclusion so that commitment is not lost. And we urgently need new training and deployment concepts that can withstand the challenges of climate change and the withdrawal of state responsibility.

It is precisely these challenges that give me energy despite everything. I love developing new concepts – like the Climate Emergency Responder, which I was able to set up together with my long-time colleague Ruben Neugebauer. I love exchanging ideas, discussing with experts from companies and universities and seeing how much willingness there is to work on new approaches. And I’m thrilled that more and more people are developing an awareness of these problems and want to get involved.  

We will not solve the problems mentioned at the beginning. But we can at least see them as a challenge and counteract the feeling of powerlessness: Humanitarian aid and disaster relief must be organized in a more decentralized, open and inclusive way and implemented innovatively. And I look forward to hopefully being able to contribute to this soon.