Aline Hubert’s article is salutary in that it not only underlines both the aid sector’s efforts and shortcomings in meeting the challenges of climate change, but also opens up new avenues. The path towards environmental justice, between adaptation and ecological transition, between reducing the environmental impact of humanitarian organisations and maintaining their primary purpose, is narrow but possible.
From the outset, ecological transition was by no means self-evident for humanitarian actors, yet climate change and all forms of environmental degradation are recognised nowadays as an existential issue for all living beings, including humans. Equally, even if the international aid sector is only responsible for a tiny fraction of current ecological problems, and despite its social mission, it is widely acknowledged that the “do no harm” principle must also be understood from an environmental standpoint, for the sake of consistency and for setting an example, and to protect the environment on which populations very often depend.
A slow build-up
The ecological message, initially conveyed by environmentally aware people, sometimes grouped in “green teams”, has gained strength with time and with increasing media coverage of the subject. In order to demonstrate their commitment to ecological transition, certain organisations have signed up to the main environmental principles of the Climate and Environment Charter[1]Charte sur le climat et l’environnement pour les organisations humanitaires, 2021, www.climate-charter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ClimateEnvironmentCharter-FR.pdf or have committed to quantified targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as the signatories to the Réseau Environnement Humanitaire declaration of commitment[2]Réseau Environnement Humanitaire, Déclaration d’engagement des organisations humanitaires sur le climat, décembre 2020, … Continue reading.
Many initiatives have arisen from these commitments: environmental evaluations, outreach campaigns, carbon footprint calculations and the drawing up and implementation of action plans are increasingly led by specially recruited environmental experts, operating in thematic working groups. However, these actions raise new methodological and technical difficulties that the organisations attempt to resolve using scientific studies and practices drawn from other sectors. Nevertheless, human resources and funding are still largely lacking, and coordination is sometimes difficult.
Although, in the humanitarian sector, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) appear to have been pioneers on environmental issues, they were rapidly followed by certain financial backers, as shown by the funders’ declaration on climate and the environment.[3]European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations, Humanitarian aid donors’ declaration on climate and environment, March 2022, … Continue reading In practice, this is reflected primarily in campaigns for raising the awareness of operational partners and the development of incentive-based regulatory frameworks.[4]Joint Initiative for Sustainable Humanitarian Assistance Packaging Waste Management and Climate Action Accelerator, Operationalizing and Scaling-up Donors’ Climate and Environmental Commitments: an … Continue reading Some binding frameworks also exist, the most emblematic in terms of scope being the “Minimum Environmental Requirements” of the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG ECHO). These new project standards are intended to promote “good” environmental practices and to reduce those with negative environmental impacts. They are welcome for improving the environmental quality of projects but also viewed with concern as an additional workload or an extra layer of administration in an increasingly bureaucratic world. They are highly generic – although DG ECHO calls for contextual awareness in their application – and they struggle to be in tune with the diversity and reality of the field, where infrastructure and public policies are often lacking. Ultimately, they are still not fully taken into account in projects and any follow-up of their implementation is still rare.
Underestimated complexity
In essence, much effort is devoted to measuring and monitoring, as precisely as possible, any negative environmental impacts, but is this accounting and normative inflation really sensible[5]Karine Meaux, « The paths to aid quality », Humanitarian Aid on the move, no. 24, December 2022, p. 26–29, https://www.urd.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/HEM_N24_EN_cr.pdf in view of the sector’s limited resources in the face of growing humanitarian needs? As well as being time-consuming, these activities help to mask any ecological complexity, while leading people to believe the subject has been clearly understood. Whereas ecology is a science of great subtlety in that it studies the interactions of living beings with their environment and between themselves within this environment, it is divided here into different topics, often treated generically, that is to say, paradoxically, detached from any “environment”. Deprived of any holistic understanding, the actors come up with thematic or sector-specific solutions, without always realising their possible contradictions. For example, better waste management will require recourse to collection, sorting and recycling channels, which will necessarily generate new GHG emissions, the very emissions the organisations are committed to reducing. So in the end, how can we strike a balance? Which criteria should be used? In practice, and more or less consciously, organisations are already making choices in certain situations.
“Deprived of any holistic understanding, the actors come up with thematic or sector-specific solutions, without always realising their possible contradictions.”
For example, some decide to distribute liquified petroleum gas in refugee camps to combat deforestation. Here the priority is therefore given to the conservation of local forest ecosystems, rather than to the reduction of GHG emissions. In numerous cases, on the contrary, actions are mainly focused on the reduction of GHG emissions. The carbon prism, being more media-friendly, can thus lead to a skewed way of thinking which overshadows other ecological concerns, their interconnections and their social impact.[6]Guillaume Sainteny, Le climat qui cache la forêt. Comment la question climatique occulte les problèmes de l’environnement, Éditions Rue de l’échiquier, 2015. This is particularly true for any technological solutions put forward. Yet it is well known that energy transition fuels energy-intensive and extremely polluting mining extractivism, impacting mainly countries of the Global South where aid operators intervene. We know that efficiency gains can lead to rebound effects that can cancel out energy savings or even create new problems. Furthermore, current reports on ecological transition in the aid sector remain silent on several strategic, political and even ethical issues, which are nonetheless of great significance.
Ecological transition blind spots
First, the objectives of decarbonisation raise a contentious issue. Do organisations commit to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions in terms of absolute value or relatively in relation to their volume of activity?[7]It is then a question of reducing the carbon intensity of their activities. Faced with this unanticipated or uncomfortable subject, organisations have adopted differing positions (when they have not simply ducked the issue). This can be explained in part by the moral tension between the overall need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide on the one hand, and the duty to provide humanitarian assistance to an increasing number of vulnerable people[8]Angus Urquhart, Erica Mason, Fran Girling-Morris et al., Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2023, Development Initiatives, 2023, … Continue reading on the other. In fact, many organisations have seen their volume of activity grow over the past few years. Faced with this dilemma, advocates of absolute value highlight the possibility of decoupling GHG emissions from humanitarian activities but fail to consider the physical limits of this decoupling. Others, to get round this difficulty, suggest defining this absolute value as an “ideal target” while providing themselves with a relative value expressed as a “planned target”[9]Réseau Environnement Humanitaire, Rapport de suivi de la déclaration d’engagement, à année +4, December 2024, … Continue reading. Incidentally, the concept of relative value opens up a methodological debate on the choice of indicator to use to define activity volumes, without leading to any entirely satisfactory answer.
Secondly, the question of the feasibility of environmental objectives, whether in absolute or relative value, has, up to now, rarely been a subject of debate. Perhaps considered inappropriate in a context in which efforts should be focused on bringing about ecological transition and thus garnering support and a collective dynamic, this question highlights the tensions existing between the wish to provide humanitarian aid and the aim of reducing one’s environmental footprint. The supply of water by tanker lorry is, for example, unanimously acknowledged as poor ecological practice even if it is tolerated in certain cases for want of an alternative. Likewise, air freight, much more polluting than sea freight, is necessary when responding to sudden, unforeseeable crises. And even some helicopter flights cannot be avoided, for safety reasons. Just how far is it reasonably possible to reduce environmental impact? And can the targets really be the same for all organisations, whatever their baseline state and any ecological practices already in place? And whatever type of activity is being carried out? Although the production of certain action plans targeting a 50% absolute value reduction of GHG emissions by 2030 may imply this is feasible, it is, in fact, difficult to judge how realistic they are. Indeed, other action plans, based on identification of acceptable actions, cast serious doubts on the achievability of their objectives.[10]See the example of Action Against Hunger in Réseau Environnement Humanitaire, Rapport de suivi…, op. cit., p. 17.
Thirdly, certain ecological measures will require additional funding. Indeed, even if other actions will generate savings, it seems that, overall, ecological transition will have a significant economic cost. So, the additional funding dedicated by organisations to environmental purposes could be considered, from a utilitarian perspective, as that much less available to cover humanitarian needs. While the gap continues to widen between humanitarian needs and funding, this raises a difficult ethical question: should ecological ambitions be set aside in order to meet a maximum number of needs? Or, conversely, should a smaller-scale response be accepted to guarantee a certain level of environmental quality? This dilemma is, in reality, somewhat artificial since yesterday’s environmental degradation contributes to today’s and tomorrow’s humanitarian disasters. By thus taking a longer timeframe into account, it is possible to situate the issue within a systematic, structural vision of the causes and consequences of humanitarian crises. Furthermore, these questions echo, to some extent, those on the cost effectiveness of aid or on the price of quality, which are far from new.
Fourthly, environmental targets have manifestly been set without considering issues of equity.[11]Aline Hubert, Objectif de décarbonation juste et équitable pour une ONG internationale, Groupe URD, 1er décembre 2024, urd.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Objectifs-decarbonation_2024_GroupeURD.pdf Is it fair to impose a carbon footprint reduction in aid, calculated by including the response to basic needs of vulnerable populations, who are the least responsible for climate change and environmental harm?[12]Réseau Environnement Humanitaire, Forum REH sur la réduction de l’empreinte environnementale de l’aide et droit au développement des pays du Sud : quels objectifs communs et quelles tensions … Continue reading While the right to development, as well as the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities,[13]United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 1992, article 3, … Continue reading play a key role in all international climate negotiations, and while the challenges of climate and environmental justice are well known to environmental NGOs, it is surprising to see how these aspects are almost always missing from the climate strategies of international solidarity organisations. Convinced of the soundness of their approach, some of them reflect, for example, on ways to decarbonise therapeutic food products distributed in cases of malnutrition, without considering that, at the same time, the meat industry is contributing to the deforestation of Amazonia[14]Youssr Youssef, « De l’Amazonie jusqu’en Europe : comment les géants du boeuf continuent à exporter de la viande liée à la déforestation », Forbidden Stories, 2 juin 2023, … Continue reading or that the fishing industry is plundering the waters of West Africa.[15]Yves Reichling, “How farming fish in Europe undermines food security and livelihoods in West Africa”, Feedback EU, 31 January 2024, … Continue reading This comparison outside the international aid sector, with industries and multinationals, is in no way naïve. On the contrary, it repositions aid sector actors within a more complex global ecosystem and reminds us of the importance of orders of magnitude: in 2022, 0.09% of emissions of greenhouse gases came from the humanitarian sector.[16]Percentage estimated using the EDGAR database and the sectoral environmental road map developed by Climate Action Accelerator We should also remember that people in the Global South emit, on average less, than one tonne of CO2 equivalent per inhabitant per year, far less than the emissions of Western countries and even below the recommended mean target of 2tCO2e/person/year, if we are to remain under 1.5°C. Therefore, the question could rather be: how can we ensure everyone has a decent, good quality of life by increasing the carbon footprint of vulnerable populations by a reasonable amount and decreasing the carbon footprint of the others?
“The question of equity of ecological measures arises, in particular between the Global North and South, thus overlapping with issues of localisation.”
But even within the sector, the question of equity of ecological measures arises, in particular between the Global North and South, thus overlapping with issues of localisation. For example, since actors in the North are statistically those who fly most and who have flown most up to now, is it fair to limit air travel in the same way for people from the North or the South? Conversely, could a reduction primarily targeting people in the North not contribute to a redistribution of power and so, in part, to the decolonisation of aid?[17]Davide Ziveri et Muhammad Asaduzzaman, “International non-governmental organizations (INGOs) in humanitarian field: why and how to engage with planetary health?”, Qeios, 21 June 2023, … Continue reading Furthermore, in addition to being potentially unjust, some of the solutions put forward also appear to be forms of a sort of coloniality[18]Denotes “the global articulation of a Western power system”, according to Arturo Escobar and Eduardo Restrepo, « Anthropologies hégémoniques et colonialité », Cahiers des Amériques latines, … Continue reading, through their Western-style management tools and models.[19]Vincent Pradier, “Coloniality or pluriversality: what do we learn from the ecological transition of NGOs?”, Humanitarian Aid on the move, no.°26, December 2024, pp. 44–51, … Continue reading
Environmental justice as the target
Some people may perhaps find these various points unproductive, claiming that the environmental commitments made were, in actual fact, merely aimed at recognising the humanitarian sector’s share of responsibility and expressing political ambition, without any obligation to obtain results. This is how we can come to a better understanding of the contradictions or omissions of current discourse. However, this would be to overlook the narratives’ performative powers and the risks involved if the issues previously mentioned are not taken into consideration.
Perhaps more desirable and easier to envisage from a technical point of view, ecological transition nowadays thus appears to be largely depoliticised, at the risk of missing, in the end, the central issue: environmental justice. Based both on a fair sharing of resources, risks and costs, and on the engagement of all stakeholders in the decision-making processes that affect them, the concept of environmental justice allows current ecological challenges and social concerns to be articulated, while advocating the reduction of environmental inequalities and the right for all to live in a healthy environment. So, because the climate crisis and environmental degradation impede human rights and the right to development, and because ecological transition and, more generally, environmental management are liable to have a negative impact on the poorest and most vulnerable populations, international aid NGOs are effectively concerned by the issues of environmental justice.
Furthermore, environmental justice is the focus of increasing divisions within our societies: on the one hand, legal actions brought against states or companies for climatic and environmental reasons, climate protests or actions of civil disobedience in defence of ecosystems and, on the other hand, the criminalisation of environmental activists, attacks on environmental institutions and the undermining of legislative and regulatory frameworks.[20]In this regard, the United States Executive Order of 20 January 2025 Ending Radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing also puts an end to environmental justice policies, … Continue reading We also see demonstrations against ecological measures perceived as unfair, such as, in France, the Yellow vests protest movement or, more recently, the farmers’ dissent. In this way, and although this may seem against humanitarian principles, it appears increasingly vital for international aid NGOs to think about environmental issues from a political angle: how is ecological transition likely to bolster or, on the contrary, undermine current mechanisms of power and domination? What positions and what actions to take, as an international solidarity NGO, in the face of growing inequalities and conflicts relating to the environment and in light of the increasingly difficult context for both international solidarity and ecology, whether in terms of funding, the ability to act or political support? In reality, these questions are not new and many civil society stakeholders and researchers[21]In particular, authors working in the field of Political Ecology. See Denis Gautier and Tor A. Benjaminsen (eds), Environnement, discours et pouvoir, Quae, 2012. are working on them. This is why convergence and bridge-building between humanitarian, environmental and anti-globalisation organisations could be an initial avenue to explore.
To conclude, after several years spent carrying out their ecological transition, organisations today recognise the technical and economic barriers to their ambition, as well as the moral tensions it creates. Nevertheless, far from leading to a dead end, the limitations of ecological transition for NGOs encourage organisations to adopt a new, more systematic and political frame of reference. Ultimately, this is an opportunity to envisage a new, more transformational path, better aligned with the challenges of environmental justice today.
Translated from the French by Fay Guerry
Picture Credit : ICRC
