Navigating Global Responsibility and National Interests

The German government is showing a willingness to reform in development cooperation and humanitarian assistance. In light of geopolitical tensions, economic uncertainty, and tight public budgets, this is both appropriate and necessary. However, it will be decisive to see whether reforms that have been initiated will actually make international cooperation more effective, fairer, and more sustainable – or whether, under the guise of reform, development policy objectives and humanitarian principles will be gradually weakened.

This is precisely what the “Kompass 2026” is all about – a publication that Welthungerhilfe and Terre des Hommes have been issuing for over three decades. Its guiding principle – “Navigating Global Responsibility and National Interests” – is both a portrayal and a call to action. After all, the political decisions made today regarding reforms, priorities, and funding will shape the scope of action for German development cooperation and humanitarian assistance for years to come.

Crises such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic or the consequences of Russia’s attack on Ukraine and the attacks by the U.S. and Israel on Iran – both considered to be in violation of international law – demonstrate just how ambitious these reforms must be. Developments surrounding the conflict in the Persian Gulf serve as a prime example of how closely global food security is linked to geopolitical developments. International systems are not crisis-resistant: geopolitical escalations, fragile supply chains, energy prices, food security, and humanitarian needs are closely intertwined.

BMZ Reform: The Will to Reform Is There, but Strategic Clarity Is Lacking

The German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (BMZ) commitment to reform is to be expressly welcomed. It is positive that the reform plan “Shaping the Future Together Globally” reaffirms the fight against hunger, poverty, and inequality as a central goal and continues to place a high priority on supporting the least developed countries (LDCs).

At the same time, however, the reform process so far lacks strategic clarity. There is no guiding vision that combines coherently the various reform goals. It remains unclear how the stated priorities are to interact in concrete terms, which indicators will be used to measure progress, and what funding targets underpin the reform. While the reform plan thus reinforces existing approaches, it does not yet signal a genuine reorientation.

This is particularly evident when it comes to food security. The reform plan identifies important areas of action such as school meals, water, local value creation, and multilateral cooperation. What is largely missing, however, is a systemic approach that integrates agricultural and food systems, climate, health, participation, economic development, and governance. Especially against the backdrop of geopolitical shocks, a narrow understanding of food security is not enough.

Partnership on an equal footing must not remain mere rhetoric

A key shortcoming of the reform plan concerns participation. So far, partner countries and civil society actors – particularly those from the so-called Global South – have not been sufficiently involved in the reform process. While there have been occasional consultations, a structured, transparent, and continuous participatory process is lacking. However, reforms of this magnitude can only be credible if those directly affected are not merely consulted but actively involved in strategic decisions. Only such an inclusive process can contribute to a reform aimed at achieving goals such as ending hunger, poverty, and inequality.

The South-North Commission which was recently announced is therefore more than just a supporting mechanism. It can serve as a test case to determine whether the German government is serious about partnership on an equal footing. To that end, it must enable genuine co-determination – both in setting the agenda and in implementation – and systematically involve partner countries, civil society, and other non-state actors on an equal footing. Only then can it move beyond the long-outdated donor-recipient pattern and become a credible forum for shared responsibility.

Economic Partnerships: Harnessing Potential, While Managing Trade-Offs

Greater involvement of the private sector can be a meaningful component of development policy. Many partner countries want to move away from traditional project funding and are calling for more economic cooperation. Economic cooperation can mobilize additional capital, promote innovation, expand local value creation, and create employment opportunities. Especially given the scarcity of public funds, it is appropriate to take this potential seriously.

It is crucial, however, that an economic focus does not become an end in itself. The value added to development policy by economic cooperation is not measured by how much investment is mobilized, but by the impact it has on local people – for example, in terms of poverty reduction, food security, and fair employment.

This puts the focus on conflicting objectives. Companies rely on predictability in planning, scalability, and economic viability. Development cooperation, on the other hand, must remain committed to the principle of leaving no one behind and upholding social standards. This tension cannot be resolved by ignoring it; it must be managed through policy.

Moreover, private investment often remains limited, particularly in the economically weakest countries. For this reason, economic cooperation can complement public development cooperation, but not replace it. Public funding remains indispensable for creating an enabling framework and contributing to basic social services.

Sustainable development takes shape at the local level. That is why local economic actors, cooperatives, young people, and civil society organizations must be systematically involved in planned partnerships. This also applies to bilateral and government negotiations: If companies are to be more closely involved in the future, civil society must not be left out. Broader participation not only enhances legitimacy and development impact but can also help identify and mitigate risks of economic cooperation at an early stage and make better use of opportunities.

Humanitarian Assistance: Cutbacks must be reversed

International humanitarian assistance is undergoing a profound crisis. While major and protracted crises continue to drive up the number of people in need, available funding is plummeting dramatically. Worldwide, more than 300 million people now depend on assistance, while not even half of the required funding is being provided. As a result, assistance is increasingly focused on immediate life-saving efforts, while preventive, resilience-building, and stabilization measures are being sidelined – even though these are precisely the measures that could help contain crises in the long term.

Wars and conflicts remain the primary drivers of humanitarian crises. Their number and intensity have more than doubled since 2010 and are now at their highest level since 1946.

Major, protracted crises such as those in Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine are causing humanitarian needs to rise dramatically. Inadequate funding, a lack of political support, and states’ increasing disregard for international humanitarian law not only hinder the response to crises but also contribute to prolonging humanitarian emergencies. The growing disparity between rising needs and insufficient political support drastically weakens the capacity to act, the reliability, and the universality of humanitarian assistance. As a result, many people who could actually be helped are left to in need.

Conflicts such as the one in Gaza in particular reveal how selectively violations of international humanitarian law are addressed globally. The German government, too, has exerted only limited public pressure in this regard. Similarly, the use of humanitarian diplomacy to ensure humanitarian access and protect the civilian population has failed to love up to expectations. This undermines the credibility of Western donor countries and the primacy of humanitarian principles.

The institutional restructuring of the Federal Foreign Office, which is responsible for humanitarian assistance, must also be viewed with ambivalence. The dissolution of Department “S”, which was also responsible for Humanitarian Assistance , and its integration into partially restructured regional departments and into the new “Global Order” department could lead to better coordination of humanitarian assistance and multilateral policy. Strategic issues such as localization, gender equality, participation, and anticipatory humanitarian assistance could also be strengthened. However, there is a risk of a loss of expertise and coherence, as well as a decline in the significance of humanitarian assistance if it is increasingly subordinated to other objectives (security, foreign policy interests, economic development).

At the same time, Germany has significantly cut its funding for humanitarian assistance: in 2026, only 1.05 billion euros will be available for this purpose – the lowest level since 2016. So far, the government’s draft federal budget for 2027 does not provide for an increase either. Between 2014 and 2024, Germany contributed an average of about 10 percent toward meeting global humanitarian needs. According to VENRO’s calculations, approximately 2.8 billion euros would be required to make a comparable contribution in 2026. Funding should therefore be increased back to this level. In terms of the federal budget, this would be a modest amount (just 0.2 percent), but at the same time it would send an important global signal of reliability and make a significant contribution to stabilizing the weakened humanitarian system.

The German government should ensure that humanitarian assistance continues to be consistently guided by needs and is not subordinated to security, foreign policy, or economic interests. Humanitarian principles are not an afterthought, but rather the very foundation of the legitimacy of humanitarian assistance. At the same time, humanitarian assistance is also in Germany’s interest: it alleviates crises, promotes stability, and strengthens Germany’s credibility, dependability, and influence in multilateral processes.

International reform processes, to, are urgently required, but some are moving in the wrong direction. The “Humanitarian Reset” does pursue legitimate goals such as greater efficiency, flexibility, reduced bureaucracy, and a stronger role for local actors. However, hyper-prioritization is particularly problematic since it effectively downplays needs and restricts assistance to the most extreme emergencies. At the same time, the promised strengthening of local actors has often fallen short of expectations. A sustainable humanitarian system is not created by managing scarcity more efficiently, but by distributing power, resources, and responsibility more equitably.

We must therefore reverse setbacks and look for improvements once more. First, this means empowering local actors to become genuine decision-makers, not merely implementers. Second, humanitarian action must be organized more proactively and anticipatorily rather than remaining purely reactive. Third, the humanitarian-development-peace nexus should be expanded where it sustainably strengthens resilience. And fourth, international humanitarian law and humanitarian principles must be defended resolutely at a policy level.

Rethinking Development Financing

Global development and humanitarian financing is currently undergoing a historic rollback. Official development assistance (ODA) has plummeted more sharply than ever before – by 23.1 percent in 2025 alone. That year, for the first time, the five largest donor countries (the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, and France) cut their funding simultaneously. The cuts hit poorest countries hardest – precisely where needs are particularly high and alternative financing options are scarce. Yet it is here, in particular, that cuts should have the least impact.

In Germany, too, ODA for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) fell by one-third – a steeper decline than the international average. Germany is thus moving further and further away from its goal of allocating 0.2 percent of its Gross National Income (GNI) to LDCs. In addition, a significant portion of German ODA funds remains within the country. In 2024, domestic spending – at 9.6 billion euros – even exceeded bilateral payments to Africa (4.8 billion euros) and Asia (4.5 billion euros).

Particularly problematic is that funding for rural development and food security in sub-Saharan Africa has fallen significantly in recent years – from 1.169 billion euros in 2022 to 717 million euros in 2024. If  a substantial contribution to overcoming hunger, poverty, and inequality is to be made, this must be addressed.

It is also important not to restrict funding for food security to specific geographic areas, as the BMZ’s reform plan currently signals. Investment in food systems is central to stability, resilience, and peacebuilding not only in Africa but also in crisis-stricken regions of the Middle East.

At the same time, the funding shortfall should serve as an opportunity to rethink development financing in a more partnership-based manner – that is, with equal opportunities for partner countries to have a say and with governance that is more inclusive and accountable.

A key reform approach lies in a stronger focus on effectiveness and financial efficiency. When allocating funds, there should be less predetermined restrictions on which type of organization (multilateral/bilateral, international or national NGO, private sector, etc.) is eligible. Rather, the decisive factor should be which proposal is the most convincing in terms of achieving goals, effectiveness, and financial efficiency. At the same time, better tools are needed to support local organizations directly and over the long term. Only when people, partner organizations, and local systems are sustainably strengthened will positive impacts endure after funding ends.

Measuring Reforms by Impact, Accountability, and Credibility

In summary, the “Kompass 2026” clearly states: reforms are necessary. But they are a step forward only if they make international cooperation more effective, equitable, and sustainable. The German government should pursue a course of global responsibility more consistently, especially now. It must demonstrate that it can credibly reconcile national interests and global responsibility – without gradually subordinating food security and humanitarian principles to other interests.