Franc Cortada: "The Seville summit was a missed opportunity to curb the billionaire oligarchy."

BarcelonaFranc Cortada has been working in the field of cooperation for over twenty-five years and has been the Executive Director of Oxfam Intermón for five years. But neither his years of experience nor the increasingly adverse context for humanitarian work have diminished his enthusiasm for his work. He recently participated in the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development, which closed this Thursday and brought together UN governments for four days—with the notable exception of Washington—to address the necessary reform of the global humanitarian aid system, in the context of the cuts imposed by Donald Trump on US cooperation, which until now had been the main contributor.

How do you assess the Seville Commitment: was it a missed opportunity?

— It has indeed been a missed opportunity for rich countries to make major changes. The money to end poverty is there, but it's in the hands of a few wealthy people in the North, an oligarchy of billionaires. We see that multilateralism still works: 192 countries have agreed to this text. But it's an agreement that has led to a loss of ambition in some areas and worrying trends. In the process, some doors are opening. We must bear in mind that this summit comes at a crucial moment, with the United States withdrawing from the table.

What impact has it had? the disappearance of USAID, the dismantled US cooperation agency by Donald Trump and Elon Musk?

— The impact is terrible because USAID was the largest contributor, with 40% of humanitarian aid globally., and they've cut 83% of that $44 billion. These are deadly cuts, literally: this year we estimate some 3.3 million additional deaths due to lack of vaccines, with another 2,000 infections per day, and 7 million additional deaths over the next four years. It's truly devastating.

Does this force NGOs like yours to cut staff?

— We receive very little funding from USAID. We only received very specific projects, such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where we had to close a rural hospital and can no longer maintain the work we were doing with water and sanitation for 480,000 displaced people. In addition, we are receiving many requests indirectly from organizations that depended on USAID, asking us to fill their gap. The bad news is that no one will come to fill the gap because the US isn't the only one cutting back. Other major traditional donors, such as Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, and the EU, also implement cuts of between 20% and 30%.

How is Oxfam funded?

— A substantial portion comes from our 150,000 members and donations, which gives us a lot of freedom. But we also receive public funding, and all of this is declining. We're fortunate enough to have a fairly healthy situation until 2027. But we'll see if it's necessary to adjust our capacity to operate. Because we're in the midst of a perfect storm.

A perfect storm?

— Several things are happening at once. First, the number of people in need of humanitarian aid has tripled in the last five years: from 100 million to 305 million. Second, financial aid is being cut. Third, the rules of the game are changing; international humanitarian law is not respected, and human rights violations continue. And fourth, humanitarian work is becoming increasingly risky. Even 280 aid workers died in the last year in the world. A couple of months ago, at Oxfam, we suffered casualties in Gaza, where many humanitarian workers died. The situation is deeply worrying, not only because of Trump's cuts, but also because of the undermining of democratic principles and the weakening of global structures, the questioning of the international order that emerged after the Second International.

Even the European Union now prioritizes militarization.

— Absolutely, there is an ideological bias, a narrative that seeks to condition international cooperation funds on security, migration, and trade. This is a moral failure and a strategic error, because if we want to guarantee security, we need to address the root causes of the problems, and that's why we need more funds for cooperation to guarantee the stability of countries and reduce conflicts.

There are those who say that the fall of USAID is an opportunity to reform an inefficient aid system.

— It's clearly a colonial system, where large organizations received a substantial share of the funding and a very small portion reached local organizations. It has a profound impact on millions of girls and women. This far-right, neoconservative policy uses weaker groups like the LGBTI community as scapegoats, and this is leading to a flagrant regression of the rights of women and minorities. Inequalities around the world were already growing.

And what to do?

— These blatant economic inequalities are not the result of fate, but of political decisions and an ideological outlook. Behind them are decisions about the tax systems we support, what regulations we impose on the private sector, who controls natural resources... And this is good news, because it means we have the capacity to reverse them. We are probably the first generation with the knowledge, technology, and financial resources to address many of these planetary challenges we face. All these large corporations that generate extraordinary profits often disrespect human rights and environmental rights, and this must end.

Will the global humanitarian aid network survive?

— I hope so. The capacity for intervention will be lower; we will have to choose our battles. I am particularly concerned about the increasingly brutal harassment that activists suffer around the world, imprisoned, murdered, and laws enacted to silence them. The Ortega government in Nicaragua expelled us from the country because we were a very inconvenient player. In India, the Modi government has made it very difficult for us to work. But nevertheless, every day there are more than 600,000 humanitarian workers who wake up with the vocation to help others, even though many risk their lives.