Evidence in an Era of Change: Insights from the Global Humanitarian Assistance 2026 Report and System-Wide Evaluative Learning

Following that panel discussion, we will open the floor to questions and comments from the participants.
With that, it is my great pleasure to ask His Excellency, Michael Gatt, the Deputy Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations here in New York, to some opening remarks.
Thank you, Mike.
Excellency ASG Rtwata colleagues and friends.
Good afternoon and welcome to everyone.
I'm really, really pleased to see so many people at our event.
And I would like to take this opportunity to recognize all of the co hosts and co sponsors.
All NAP for the interagency Humanitarian Evaluation, Thailand, the EU, Belgium, NER CALP Network, and Mercy Corps.
What a great group.
We meet at a pivotal moment during an era of change as the humanitarian system continues to shift.
And in this context, evidence becomes one of the most important tools we have to actually guide our decisions and to strengthen our impact.
A clear view of the sector and the realities that we face is really essential to the credibility of our collective response.
Canada, like many of you here today, remains committed to advancing this really, really important work.
Today we're joined actually by organizations and representatives who see firsthand how this moment of uncertainty is affecting response efforts on the ground.
They face difficult decisions every day.
And understand just how critical informed decision making is to the lives of the people that they serve.
And this is why as funding becomes more limited, we can't afford to let data and evidence fall by the wayside.
In fact, we need it now more than ever.
Canada is proud to support data and systems enablers that actually strengthen the shared evidence base for humanitarian action.
In times of uncertainty, conversations like this really matter.
They ensure that the humanitarian system remains effective, principled, and people centered.
And with strong evidence, we are better equipped to make informed decisions together.
The Global Humanitarian Assistance Report and the interagency Humanitarian Evaluation System Um, sorry, and the inter agency Humanitarian evaluation synthesis are key contributions to humanitarian systems evidence base.
Today, we bring these two sources together to support a focused discussion on strengthening coordination, improving financing effectiveness, and advancing more coherent results oriented reform.
At the same time, while highlighting the importance of evidence and learning across the sector.
Our panel this afternoon represents perspectives from local and national actors and international organizations.
We will explore those critical trade offs and decision points shaping the humanitarian system and how evidence and learning can guide better decisions.
The discussion will consider how evidence can inform prioritization, coordination, accountability, localization, financing and operational choices in resource constrained contexts, particularly as the financial landscape shifts and expectations for results grow.
Mike, I'll stop there.
I just wanted to thank in advance today's panelists and really look forward to this discussion.
Thank you.
Your Excellency, thank you very much for those opening reflections and also for your presence here today.
It's much appreciated.
I would now like to invite our presenters to share the key findings from the two reports that form the basis of today's conversation.
First, it is my pleasure to invite Juliette Parker and James Darcy to present the key findings from the 2026 Global Humanitarian Assistance Report and the synthesis of the interagency Humanitarian evaluations respectively.
Juliet is a seasoned humanitarian, an expert in monitoring, evaluation, accountability, and learning, and she is the Director of ALMAP, the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance.
James is an independent humanitarian evaluation expert with more than 30 years of experience at the global level and has led major evaluations and researches and reviews for UN agencies and the Interagency Standing Committee, and I welcome you both to present your findings.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you so much.
The Global Humanitarian Assistance Report provides independent analysis of international humanitarian financing, offering critical insight into funding trends and what they mean for a system navigating one of the most challenging periods in its history.
The report was published yesterday and you can find a card on your table in front of you with the QR code on it to have a look at the report and a survey on the back in case you want to give us any feedback.
Next slide, please.
Overall, we've gone from an era of big aid, back one.
Overall, we've gone from an era of big aid to one where prioritization is now the name of the game.
Cuts and prioritization are combining to exclude more people than ever before.
Next slide.
The big story in the report, of course, is about reductions.
The humanitarian sector has gone from receiving $47 billion in 2023 to $33 billion in 2025.
That means in the space of two years, we've lost nearly 30% of the sector.
But we shouldn't be under the illusion that this is solely due to the changes in the US.
A large part of it is, it represents a wider shift across the sector.
The big change came before Trump 2.0 in 2024 when 13 of the top 20 donors were decreasing humanitarian assistance.
In 2025, eight donors are still substantially decreasing funding.
That includes the US cutting by 55%, Germany by 36%, Japan by 29%.
The actual number of donors cutting substantially in 2025 compared to 2024 has reduced, so it's possible the tide is turning.
It's just that those that are cutting are cutting deep.
Next slide, please.
Within this trend, we have two unfortunate norms that shape things, protractedness and prioritization.
Here you can see the percentage of funding and funding required to meet humanitarian needs going to protracted crises.
In 2016 on the left hand side, around half of funding went to protracted crises.
In 2025, it was 95%.
Prioritization is now the norm.
Of course, it's inevitable for a sector that has never had enough resources to meet needs, but the extent of prioritization now means fewer people will be reached.
You can see here the upward trend in appeal funding requests to 2023 when it peaked before prioritization started to kick in and funding requirements have decreased each year since then.
We are asking for less money as a sector and targeting fewer people, but that's not because there's fewer needs.
You can see the total funding requirement in 2026 is somewhere 2019-2020 levels, despite the fact that food insecurity is now around twice the levels of 2019 and displacement is up around 50%.
Next slide.
Development funding is down a lot as we know, and the cuts there appear to be steeper than humanitarian spending.
At the same time, domestic governments don't appear to be stepping into the space left by humanitarians and as a consequence, assistance to vulnerable populations is being reduced.
Next slide.
Within the traditional donor landscape, things are changing.
Power is shifting, who has influence is changing, and the donor landscape is fragmenting.
Next slide.
This slide shows the change in the last year and the last two years in funding to the top 20 humanitarian recipients and it's a wall of red.
Last year, funding only went up to Palestine and Myanmar.
Lebanon and Jordan had over 50% cuts in one year and many other contexts nearing 50%, Yemen, DRC, Ethiopia, Somalia, Nigeria, Niger, many of the protracted crisis contexts I mentioned earlier.
This new funding context is one where there is less funding and also a wider spread of donors giving not as much money.
Next slide.
Here you can see in 2016, on the left hand side, the top four donors, which is the teal section at the bottom, US, EU, Germany and the UK made up 66% of all funding to humanitarianism.
This remained pretty constant all the way through to 2024.
But in 2025 on the far right here, you can see a significant change.
The top four historic donors is now at 47% down from 61%.
The US and Germany were responsible for around nine in $10 lost, which meant the UAE and Saudi Arabia are now bigger donors than Germany.
Other DAC donors are up from 27% to 34% due to the cut of the big players.
To note on the EU, which isn't on this graph, specifically, the EU and EU member states as a block now make up 36% of overall funding far more than the US.
Gulf donors started to increase their percentage to 17%, not far off the US as a group, but whether that will continue after the Iran war, we don't know.
What this means is that the sector has become diverse by default, but it's also more fragmented, a world where not one donor dominates anymore, but power is more spread out.
Next slide, please.
This chart shows contributions to OCA managed pooled funds, CBPFs and the SRF since 2021.
Actually, they were a declining instrument.
Mainly funded by Germany, the UK, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, they then peaked in 2022, as did humanitarian funding generally, and they lost about a third in contributions in three years.
Now, of course, we have the US stepping into this space.
This chart is, of course, partial.
We're not even halfway through 2026 yet.
With the CBPS, we now have two systems living inside one, with each making different choices of which context to respond in, which sectors to prioritize, and which humanitarian actors to fund.
Whereas before, there was an element of coherence in the pooled funds.
Now we can see the effects of a fragmenting system.
Next slide.
From paralysis to paralysis and here we're talking about the sector's inability to reform itself.
Next slide.
Let's start with localization.
Almost exactly ten years ago, grand bargain signatories agreed to achieve by 2020 at least 25% of humanitarian funding going to local and national responders as directly as possible.
Six years past target, we are still nowhere near.
Our best estimate based on 2024 data is 9.5% going directly and indirectly to local and national actors and a partial view of 2025 is that only 8.7% went to local and national actors.
Next slide.
Next, cash has been on the decline.
Peaked in 2022, but in 2025, funding basically went back a few years to 2021 levels.
But there is a bright spot.
It did shrink less than the other sectors, which meant that it still hovers around 20% of all humanitarian assistance as it has done since the start of the decade.
Then we have anticipatory action on the right hand side.
The idea that you know a hazard might come, you plan for it and you fund it ahead of time.
Again, that is an increase, but it's still such a small part of the pie at less than 1%.
Last slide.
Just a final thought on localization.
Here you can see some numbers on who gets funding at the first level.
The question is, if we want to provide more funding directly to local and national actors, where would that money come from? Does it come from multilaterals or INOs for example, though they saw significant drops last year.
It's very difficult to address this question without being ready to think about the respective roles of different actors and how they fit together in a complementary system, including the systems of national governments, private sectors, and others.
The funding information as ever, only shows one part of the story.
Next slide.
Thank you for listening, and I'll leave you with just a few final thoughts to finish.
Firstly, what happens to those who are being excluded? Yes, prioritization is part of our reality, but how is it done? Can we be better at transitioning? Can we build on national systems? Because yes, 87 million people have been prioritized, but what happens to the other 152 million people who aren't? Secondly, there's a real question of whether we need to redesign the roles of the system.
The sector is shrinking into a smaller version of itself, but fundamentally, we're doing the same stuff.
Do we need to change the structures, the roles and see that structural design as fundamental to reform? And thirdly, who will lead? Power is more spread out across donors.
The US is stepping back and no one actor dominates anymore.
If you want to rethink roles of different actors or drive locally led humanitarian action or anything, in fact, to improve or change the system, it requires leadership and where that sits in the new funding context is definitely changing.
Thank you very much.
With that, I'm delighted to pass to James.
Thank you, Juliette, very much.
That was pretty sobering.
Some of what I would say in this will reflect some of the points that Juliette was making.
If we could have the first slide, please.
I've been asked to say something about the evidence arising from the interagency evaluations, and these are the most comprehensive evaluation, the biggest source of evidence about how the whole system responds to crises.
Um.
I should say that the report of the synthesis can be found online, and there's a summary version of it, you may be relieved to know.
The point of doing the synthesis was threefold.
One was to provide a compilation of evidence because not everybody can read long complicated reports all the time.
Um, The other was to produce a meta analysis.
In other words, when you read across those evaluations, what are the big things that jump out at you? The issues that arise for the system as a whole.
The third was to come up with a set of recommendations, which we've done and are quite detailed.
I should say they are cross reference to the reset recommendations, although this was an independent process, nevertheless, we have correlated with the reset agenda.
All of the evaluations in question, you can see them on the right there and they span a decade.
They cover natural disasters, complex emergencies, combination of the two.
Um, they all predate the current funding crisis, but actually they all deal with issues of prioritization and targeting.
Um.
In other words, the point of this exercise is partly to say, what are the ongoing structural issues that face the system that may help us when we keep them on the table while we look at the issues that have come to the for more immediately because of the funding crisis.
Next slide, please.
One of the things that's striking about the evaluations is how much of the analysis is about how agencies negotiate the space that has allowed them by host authorities on the one hand and donors on the other.
Um, it's important to stress, I think the limits of humanitarian accountability.
In other words, the limits to which the system itself can be held responsible for humanitarian outcomes.
The humanitarian agenda is a matter of public policy as much as it is how the humanitarian system itself works.
We've seen it in Gaza most strikingly recently.
The observance of international humanitarian law, the principle of humanity, which belongs in the public domain, not just in the more specialized domain of humanitarian action.
But the overall conclusion from the evaluations, I would say, is this that when they're properly funded and granted secure and sustained access, the system is remarkably successful in preventing the most catastrophic outcomes.
Epidemic, famine, and so on.
The exception to that is protection and we might come back to protection.
Performance beyond that catastrophic level is much more mixed.
There's an awful lot of detail in the synthesis about how and why that may be true.
Next, please.
The evaluations reflect four main forms of acute human vulnerability.
What is it that we're responding to when we respond to crisis? Well, four things in particular, it seems acute food insecurity, sudden loss of livelihoods, income, and assets, acute threats to life and health, including malnutrition, and acute protection threats including force displacement.
The trouble is we're not very good at seeing those things together.
They all interact and they overlap.
We tend to treat them separately.
We know this, we're not good at treating them as an interactive set of factors.
Four topics run through the synthesis, I would say, supply and demand.
On the supply side, we are largely supply driven system.
Agencies tend to do what they have developed operational capacity to do.
That's how we respond.
On the demand side, We're not good at assessing it.
We can assess needs, but we're much less good at assessing the capacity gaps in country.
What are the things that we need to complement to supplement and so? We're poor at doing that and we might want to discuss it.
The functions of the system, we need to be much clearer in any given context.
What exactly is the function are the functions that are needed? They range from auxiliary to substitutionary.
I'll say more on the next slide about that.
Upstream and downstream issues, we're very uncertain about the role of the humanitarian system on the upstream side by which I mean anticipatory action, which we've heard about, for which funding is increasing but not nearly enough, and preparedness and so on and downstream recovery, resilience, nexus and so on.
We need a much better definition of whether humanitarian system fix at the moment, we promise to do it and we don't do it.
Finally, one of the recurrent topics is the hybrid nature of the humanitarian system.
We sometimes forget that this is a system made up of autonomous agencies with their own mandates and their own funding sources that raises a lot of issues.
The thing is it's not just about coordinating, we may be more or less well coordinated.
We're not collaborating is the issue.
It's collaborating.
It's working on a single agenda together that we're poor at doing.
The issues that are raised by this hybrid nature of the system run through the whole evaluation process.
I should say there are some advantages to the hybrid system.
Sometimes we can do things because we are diverse, in spite of all the difficulties that creates for coordination and so on.
Next, please.
I said I'd say something about auxiliary and substituy functions.
Here's a very simplified version of a wider humanitarian ecosystem.
With the central spine, which is international aid donors funding a UN led humanitarian system, providing essentially goods and services, and in goods, I include cash to affected communities with or without the involvement of local aid actors.
I should say at that point that a lot of the localization of gender is about that.
I should say, from the evaluations, it becomes clear how pivotal local organizations have been to the delivery of absolutely crucial lifesaving responses, particularly, I can think of Somalia and Yemen.
Next, sorry, one last on that picture.
The goods and services thing really matters.
Services relates to existing state capacity.
You can't really deliver services.
From a standing start, you have to work with existing capacity.
That has real consequences for how we think about localization.
It's very hard to localize services.
Goods and cash in particular relates to the status of markets.
We might want to talk more about that.
Next slide, please.
I'll go quickly through these because we have no time.
There's a whole set of questions that are raised about the upstream side of this endeavor.
It emerges that risk reduction is not given nearly enough weight.
Lots of issues about program relevance and effectiveness, effectiveness often assumed rather than evidenced.
On protection, we're much stronger on remedial action than we are on prevention.
We're very weak on prevention.
Centrality of protection really lacks focus.
Next slide, please.
There's analysis of government engagement of AAP localization.
I haven't time to say much on this.
On localization, I would say that our ambition exceeds our operational clarity and investment.
Localization needs investment.
It's not just a way of saving money as it's sometimes portrayed.
Transition is essential.
90% of what we do now is in protracted crisis.
We're really poor at transitioning from them.
Why, all sorts of factors there, political, economic, and so on.
But we don't define transition to what with the relevant authorities.
We're really poor at defining transition.
A last point on strategic leadership and coordination.
The evaluations looked a lot at this question.
HCTs come across as largely information sharing rather than decision making bodies and largely reactive rather than proactive.
Above all, there's a lack of a clearly articulated and focused strategic intent in HCTs.
Next slide.
This is my last, I think, I Four points I would make.
The system's role and its limits are unclear.
We need to be clear on what business the humanitarian system is in and what it is not.
What are its comparative advantages and limitations and those of others in any given context.
Second, a real lack of clarity on these upstream and downstream roles.
They are simply too open ended.
We need to work much, much more closely with other actors on this agenda.
Third, a need to configure system roles differently for rapid onset and protracted crisis.
We tend to adopt the same model in both.
We can't afford to.
The synthesis has a lot to say about that and the recommendations do too.
Finally, the role of the HCT needs radical refocused on a prioritized agenda and collaborative action rather than simply coordination.
I will leave it at that point.
Thank you very much.
Juliet and James, obviously much more in the reports as they mentioned both online and I hope actually there should be enough to tempt some of the audience in a moment to focus on questions that could be asked if there are issues in there or pieces that they would like to pull on.
I think together these two reports provide very complementary perspectives on the current state of the humanitarian system.
One obviously examines how humanitarian action is financed and funding patterns that are evolving at this current time and the other examines what we've learned from now a decade of humanitarian responses across a wide range of crisis settings.
I would argue that both serve as a bit of a call to action for a time of challenge, change, and opportunity.
That brings us on to our panel discussion.
The purpose of this panel discussion is to explore what do these findings mean in practice? How can they be translated into action and what implications they may have for future decision making? I am delighted to welcome our panelists, and I'll start by thanking them all for being here today and for participating.
First, I would like to introduce Malia ira, who is the co founder of FoodEp Venezuela and a member of the Nia Network, bringing more than three decades of experience supporting vulnerable communities and advancing locally led humanitarian action in some of Venezuela's most affected regions.
We also have Her Excellency, misses Chai Party Yt, currently serving as the Deputy Permanent Representative of Thailand in the United Nations in New York, a career diplomat with Thailand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs since 1999.
She's held a range of senior leadership positions, including Deputy Director General of the Department of Asian Affairs, Director of the European Union Division, and Deputy Chief of Staff in the Office of the Foreign Minister, as well as the overseas postings in Shanghai.
Has extensive experience international economic and multilateral affairs, Your excency, thank you for joining us.
Finally, on the first panel, I'd love to welcome as well.
Holly, welcome Redhe, who is the senior policy advisor and America's America's regional representative for the CALP Network with more than 25 years of humanitarian development experience with recognized expertise in cash and voucher assistance, food security, and livelihoods across multiple regions.
And then to my left and to your right, our second panel will be Enrique Rashwa who is the acting Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy emergency relief coordinator.
And he brings with him 30 years of experience in humanitarian affairs and Protection, most recently serving as the Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan with the United Nations Assistant Mission in Afghanistan.
Well, he also held roles of the resident and the humanitarian coordinator.
During his UN career, he has held senior leadership positions with UNHCR, including the Director of Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific, representative in Pakistan, as well as postings across Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East.
Sarah welcome to the panel.
Finally, but by no means least, Katie Crosby, who is the Senior Director for Policy and Advocacy at Mercy Cops bringing extensive experience in humanitarian policy, foreign assistance, budgets, and appropriations, and engagement with the United States Congress, USAID, and the broader multilateral system.
All of you, please welcome to the panel and thank you so much for being here.
The GHA report paints a stark reality for the humanitarian sector.
Marina, I'd like to start with you, if I may, and ask, what, in your reflections is the implications of these two reports for the localization agenda and for local actors? A Thank you and thank you for inviting me to reflect on this event.
Today, the humanitarian sector has more evidence than ever before, but let's be honest, the system is not only losing funding, but also losing legitimacy.
The key question is why the evidence still hasn't changed or practices? Because we don't allow local and national NGOs to carry out humanitarian aid and local development processes.
Ten years ago, we commit to channeling funds as directly as possible.
Today, the reality of local funding seems closer to 0% than 25%.
When large sums of money arrive, the systems automatically reverts to the same old international channels.
Flow is the obstacle here.
Intermedia libc The solution is no longer theoretical.
Recent research by Neil showed that 64 locally led pool funds are already operating successfully in the global South.
They are not intermediaries.
They are governed close to the communities, respond to the real ecosystems and are funded based on trust.
We're not asking to eliminate international funding.
We're asking to rebalance the scales and transfer resources to the local level, to believe in local capacities, it is time to choose.
Creating pool and locally led funds is the way the system works best.
Institutional embargo, Marginal intern The findings of the International Agency Monitarian Assessment Report do not surprise us.
However, marginal adjustments are no longer enough.
Today, NER present its paper on the future of the UN and we want to be clear, limiting the role of international actors in the face of natural disasters is not a radical stance.
What is truly radical is continuing to take for granted that international leadership should be the default option.
The viewing remains fundamental for defending rights, defining technical standards, and building diplomatic bridges, but its role should be to create spaces not to design on our behalf.
It financiiv It is time to stop reforming the margins and start funding ecosystem that are already saving lives on the ground, needs for pillars, transferring power, investing in local capacities, flexible financing, and equitable partnership are an option that will impact the system and bring about the desired change.
Thank you very much.
Helena, thank you very much and I say you enlightened us in more than one way with the lights going on.
Thank you to the technical team for shining light on us, but thank you.
For the next question, I'm going to first of all, call on Your Excellency and then Holly.
With this pose, how can the humanitarian sector adapt its financing approaches to mobilize more diverse, predictable and flectible resources in what is an increasingly constrained global environment, Your excellency? Thank you very much, Michael, and good afternoon to everyone.
I must, first of all, thank the permanent mission of Canada, as well as the IASC along with other partners for inviting Thailand to be a part to co sponsor this important side event.
I also thank the Juliet and James for their presentations, giving us a clearer picture of where we stand today.
Um, I brief, the answer to the question that you asked really is, we need to work smarter because there's less to go around, and that is why I think Thailand is very pleased to see that some of the key recommendations coming out of the evaluation reports is that we need to shift from reacting, from being reactive to a greater emphasis on risk reduction, on preparedness, prevention.
Those are the agendas that I think are key and they really very much align with Thailand's actions and also our views.
As some of you may know, we are a country with a longstanding humanitarian tradition and we've seen the landscape evolve.
Much of the funding, um in Thailand that has gone to humanitarian assistance in the 1980s really had to do with taking care of displaced persons who came to Thailand along our western border fleeing conflict.
Um, and we at one point hosted hundreds and thousands of these displaced persons.
We have sought to resettle them in third countries, as well as arrange for their voluntary, safe, and dignified return.
This, we had a lot of cooperation with the UNHCR and also with the IOM, Um, and more recently, we have sought to make these solutions a bit more sustainable.
We still have some 60 or 70,000 displaced persons in the temporary shelters along our western border, and we are helping them now to be more self reliant.
We are giving them skills training, vocational training, allowing them to work outside of the temporary shelters as well.
So that is one solution.
But since the 2000, much of the humanitarian assistance in our country has gone to, uh, responding to situations of disaster, mostly natural disasters, earthquakes, tsunamis.
We are also a very climate vulnerable country, so we have a lot of floods and droughts.
We are getting hotter every year regrettably.
That is why the Thai government has invested a lot in disaster risk reduction.
You know, we have a dedicated department under the Ministry of the Interior that is called the Department of Disaster Prevention and Management.
We have a national plan in place.
We also have a strong network at the community level to respond or to prepare for disasters and to respond as well.
We have invested in forecasting, floods, tsunami warnings, risk communication.
We are also collaborating with our partners in the region at the Asean level as well.
All of this is a work in progress.
Just last year, we had an earthquake.
It was an earthquake that You know, with an epicenter in Myanmar.
But of course, the effects of the earthquake were felt all the way in Thailand.
It was a very strong earthquake.
We also, at the end of the year, had flooding in the South.
Um In response to this, we tried to take risk informed actions based on disaggregated data, but we still don't have enough data in order to get assistance to the vulnerable populations, the most vulnerable in a timely manner.
Of course, when you have a number of agencies involved in response efforts, coordination gets difficult.
Um, so When it comes to money, that's always a difficult problem.
How do we actually ensure that we have diverse, predictable, flexible sources of funding? I think we need to shift mindsets from funding after crisis, perhaps to funding to risk informed funding pre crisis? If we make that an area of focus, and we aim to get pooled funding, flexible funding, contingency funding, something that is prearranged, funding that can be released when, for example, the agreed triggers are met for certain situations, and this funding should also be locally accessible.
That might help.
Also, we should better respond to the needs, as has been said, around the table of local actors, community level actors, local demand because they are the first responders and they should know best what to do.
The humanitarian country team can also perhaps support capacities in this respect by helping us to close any gaps we may have in data collection, by helping us to close any other gaps in regulatory frameworks for anticipatory budget allocation, for example, so that assistance can be delivered in a timely manner.
Lastly, I think, am I over time? I'm sorry.
If you very quick correct.
Yes.
Perhaps you can consider more diverse funding from development banks, from philanthropy, private sector, climate funding, even regional mechanisms.
I mentioned Asean earlier.
The regional organizations, regional mechanisms are what makes multilateralism stronger as a whole.
This is what I'd like to share for now.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Lots to pull on perhaps at the questions time.
Finally, Holly, I'd love to get your reflections as well.
Thank you.
I'm here.
Great.
Distinguished panelists and guests, thank you so much for having C here.
The GHA report tells us what we already feel.
Humanitarian funding is falling and the gap between need and resources is widening.
But alongside the funding crisis, there is an efficiency crisis and unlike the funding crisis, this one is largely in our power to fix.
So the question is not only how we mobilize more diverse and predictable resources, but it's also how we use evidence to make resources we have already more flexible, effective, and accountable.
So I'm going to draw on three points, and that is better prioritization, stronger accountability, and better delivery.
And all three of these evidence points in the same direction and are connected to cash assistance.
So first, finance what delivers the greatest impact per dollar.
Recent research from the Calc network found that multipurpose cash assistance is up to 37.5% more cost efficient than income food assistance.
At a global scale, this translates into one to $3 billion US that could be used more effectively every year, enough to reach 60 million more people without raising a single additional dollar.
Now, that last number should really give us pause because it means every year we don't make this shift, we're leaving 60 million people unserved.
Cash assistance is also the most flexible modality, easy for the system to scale up and easy to scale down, and it is flexible for the people who receive it.
Second, use data from crisis affected people to guide resource allocation.
New findings that we're finalizing in a report that will be out in September shows that when people affected by crisis are asked how they want to receive assistance, guess what they say.
In Afghanistan, 89% said cash.
In Myanmar, 90-98% said cash and in Ukraine, 79.
These are not marginal preferences.
They reflect something fundamental.
People want agency.
The ability to decide for their own households, not to have decisions made for them.
People centered humanitarian system takes that seriously.
Yet financing decisions do not always reflect this evidence.
The recent IMAP report shows that cash and voucher assistance, ult pointed out, still holding its own just about 20% of the total IHIA But if we're serious about flexible financing, then donor allocations and funding instruments should be designed to respond to evidence from affected communities and not assumptions about what people need.
My third point is, and it speaks to what Maleney was talking about, see local actors as part of the financing solution.
This is about who delivers cash assistance and it has direct implications on localization.
The conversation of localization is often framed as a question of equity and participation, which are really important reasons.
But the evidence points also to a financing rationale, our data, Admittedly a small sample because local actors receive only a tiny share of direct funding, but it shows that local organizations delivering cash assistance achieve 73% cost efficiency, meaning nearly three quarters of every dollar reaches a person in crisis.
These are not marginal actors.
They are often the most efficient and the most trusted that we have with a proximity and contextual knowledge that is hard to replicate from outside.
In a world of shrinking resources, investing directly in capable local actors, implementing cash assistance is not only the right thing to do, it's how we stretch funding further.
Here's where I'm landing.
Choosing the most efficient modality makes resources more flexible.
Anchoring decisions and what affected people tells us makes them more accountable, and channeling more of the money through local actors makes the system more diverse and responsive.
All of this points to cash assistance.
Now, none of this requires new money.
It requires using what we already have but using it differently.
We're in a moment of constrained resources and hard choices.
This panel is exactly the right place to ask, are we making those choices based on evidence? Because evidence is clear.
Cash assistance is more efficient, it's no riskier.
It's what people want and local actors can deliver it effectively.
What we need now is decision making by donors, governments, coordinators, and operational actors that systematically reflects what evidence tells us.
In a constrained environment, evidence is not simply a tool for accountability.
It is one of our most important tools for improving how the humanitarian system prioritizes, finances, and delivers assistance.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, some incredibly highlighted several important themes there, which I'm very grateful for you all recognizing and I hope they will come out in the conversations that we have as we move to the questions later on, themes around localization, how do we do better with what we've got as opposed to finding more preparedness, flexibility, and maximizing the impact of available resources.
Thank you all for your thoughts those.
I know that there are many organizations and member states who are grappling with those very same pieces, so I'm very grateful if you pointed that out.
But the evidence presented here today not only raised questions about financing.
It also prompts broader reflection on how the humanitarian system has engaged in the past and how it must evolve in the future to the changing realities.
That brings us to our second discussion and our second panel.
I'd like to invite our next panelists to reflect on the following question, which is that given the new context, and which the sector is working in as humanitarian actors adapt to more resource constrained environments, what should the system prioritize to remain effective, to remain principled, and to remain people centered? Holly, I've got a hint, I know what the answer would be if it was to come from you.
But I'll start off by acting, please, if I may, the acting Assistant Secretary-General, Mr.
Raw.
Thank you very much, Michael then.
Thank you very much, Michael, and again, a shout out of appreciation to both Juliet and James for the presentation and the fantastic two reports I've been talking about evidence based.
I think it speaks to itself, the hard data and the facts as Holly was also saying, just highlight some key elements here.
At a time when humanitarian systems are facing all the difficult choices and unprecedented financial pressures as the report itself has shown, um, that critical evidence and the lessons to inform how we move forward.
Perhaps in answer to your question, Michael, maybe four areas of prioritization for us.
And as we adapt to a far more resource constrained environment, these four, not exclusively, might be in the spirit of, uh, from coordination to collaboration.
I like that very much.
Also, as you said, James, the point about how does one look at, you said the top and bottom, but even that continuum of humanitarian action also linking to resilience and development action remains critical to go from fragility to stability if you want to look at it as a continuum as well.
First, I think when we talk of prioritization, we've been doing that for a long time.
We are saying hyper prioritization right now, but we've been doing that tough process on the ground together.
When I say we, I'm talking about the humanitarian community, national partners, local authorities, the UN and colleagues as to how do we identify the most critical needs? I think here, evidence, data, data, and data is, I think, really the first commitment to really have joined up data gathering, analysis, and leading to joint programming in action because that is where the weakness lies as also Malena highlighted, the silos we get into of the development and the humanitarian.
There are architectural historical reasons for this, but we've been talking about this.
Get out of that and looking at severity, life saving, and the shocks as our need.
That leaves a certain amount of people out of it.
What about those people? Right? And maybe one part of it is to see how that resilience investments also can come and mitigate some of the shocks for those who are out of it.
Not easy, but something's got to buffer that shock.
Not a perfect solution.
I'm not saying it is, but that's one part of it.
Secondly, we must protect the humanitarian action as being the legitimacy of it, if I can put it that way, on the principles, humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence.
It's been challenged.
The normative frameworks are being challenged.
It's been ripped apart in many areas.
So in terms of financial pressure, I think these principles are not optional.
This is where it's not a luxury from better funded times.
I think it's more the foundations of trust that those principles are maintained, adhered to, and fought and fought for in every sense.
Thirdly, I think it's been raised.
We've been talking about it, but putting people at the center.
We had grand bargain commitments to localization.
We talked about making national partnerships and that we should go beyond the contractual arrangement of pass through mechanism to an entity and saying that's localization.
Agency, representation in decision making and governance is part of it and building the capacity, obviously, and just looking back at what we are doing in the context of research in Afghanistan, we look at area based model, and in that area based, we looked at a humanitarian partner and a development partner, but it had to be a national or international partner and a UN partner who's best placed in that locality, who has the capacity and the expertise and the knowledge to lead.
That I must say, took quite a lot because everybody, you have the turf, you have the resources, all this coming into this challenging space and it worked after some difficult discussions saying who's best placed and that agency of ownership over decisions is really important.
Last, I think, fourth, honest about the limits of humanitarian action and that's where the combination about what humanitarian action can do.
It's not the panacea for all evil, we say it's a band aid.
But then how does resilience and investments come in with partnership, private sector, IFIs and others coming seamlessly from the very beginning of recovery.
And lastly, I think the pillars we're talking about need not just capacity, the political willingness.
We need the political willingness to move from coordination to collaboration, as you said, James, and really make that the imperative we have going forward.
Stop there.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, sir, and Kate, Christine.
Thank you all.
This is the best and worst position to be in as batting cleanup and the last stop before what is hopefully going to be a lively Q&A amongst all of us in the room, especially coming after a distinguished panel.
So thank you all very much for your engagement.
Um, I appreciate the way in which this panel really does represent a great marrying of the data and evidence along with influence, along with what happens next? What do we do with this evidence base that has been collaborated on and really spelled out in an excellent way by both James and Juliet as well as other panelists.
As someone who represents an implementer, who has our own evidence base as well as our programmatic experience.
It's very helpful to hear these different voices around the table and try to pick out some of the most salient points at least from our perspective.
With that, I will of course, point to Holly's comments around cash.
If the question is, what are the most effective, principled and people centered ways in which we can continue to engage with the humanitarian reset as a sector, I think cash cannot be denied I think more broadly, certainly in the returns on investment and the efficiency pieces that Holly pointed to, but also the fact that we are seeing through some of the more emergent crises that the economic ripple effects do not stay within a given country or region.
I think certainly with the conflict in Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, we are seeing the economic ripple effects throughout the Horn of Africa, in Sudan, in Somalia, as we are seeing food, fuel, and fertilizer prices skyrocketing and at best being in flux and like I said, at worst, going up by as much as 300%, which is layered on top of a lot of the pre existing crises that we are already seeing and having cash both in anticipation of and in response to these crises, as well as having a broader market systems vision of how best to mitigate the impacts of crises such as this, as well as moving into the second point, which has also been pointed out, which is that anticipatory action and broader resilience agenda, um, We are seeing the retrenchment and unfortunately the retreat of many donors and with that undeniable and ruthless prioritization that really focuses on the lifesaving assistance, which we all completely agree is necessary, too often comes at the expense or is forced to compete with the underlying resilience and anticipatory action activities that we have all seen is what actually reduces the cure on the back end.
Our oft quoted piece in our organization is an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
While that may be trite, it really has been borne out both from a financial perspective and from a infrastructure, sweat equity and engagement perspective and ensuring that we are not pitting those against one another with donors as well as within our own organizations, I is incredibly valuable.
We have seen the ways in which resilience and anticipatory action can in fact help develop some of those off ramps that James mentioned are all too often absent.
Whether it is on the front end with anticipatory action or early recovery on how to get an off ramp.
However weaving, however long it may be, it is never a straight line, but does help us move in a direction rather than stay where we are.
I would say finally, the third piece that I would point to is what has been touched on, I think in some of these analyses, but not necessarily centered, and that is the diplomatic engagement angle, which is certainly the responsibility of politicians of policymakers at capital within multilaterals, as well as civil society and others.
Um, You know, we will never humanitarian our way out of a crisis and peace does not just spontaneously break out because someone wakes up someday and decides to see the light and the scales have fallen from their eyes.
This takes the grinding, hard boring unsexy engagement of humanitarians as well as policymakers and ensuring that the evidence that we have is turned into action, that we are creative in our communication and persistent in our engagement while still maintaining the IHL principles and our core tenets in hopefully more creative ways and engaging ways as we have to meet this moment.
Um, So I think the last piece with that as part of the diplomatic engagement is that as with so much around this table, we really see funding as a both and, not an either or, whether it is the breadth of donors, and we saw this in the graphs where people have argued that philanthropy can cover the gap or multilaterals or the private sector.
Again, making sure that you have the right tool in the right place at the right time is going to be how we move forward rather than simply relying on any silver bullet, which I think we all understand does not exist and yet always somehow hope for hope against hope.
I would push to ensure that we are not closing off routes or opportunities, but rather trying to find the right puzzle piece that fits in the right context.
I look forward to hearing the rest of the panel and their questions and answers.
Thank you.
Thank you very much both fascinating.
I think humanitarian action has always involved challenging contexts and difficult choices and even as I think those choices clearly are becoming more difficult and the context more challenging, I think both of you draw pieces there where there is also an opportunity through pieces like this to learn to adapt, but critically to your point to be turned into action and to change.
Thank you both for those.
I think your points highlight the importance of grounding those choices then in evidence and learning and critically in the perspectives of those that are affected and affected people.
Um We are now going to transition this into the question and answer component for this session.
Just a few very quick ground rules before we do.
Please, if you have a question, if you could please raise your hand that will allow the technical team to make sure that your microphone is on.
I will look to call on and recognize several, a group, a batch of questions.
Please ask your questions.
I say questions, I will also request encourage a bias towards questions.
We have an incredible panel here, the two presenters over necessarily comments from the audience.
With those questions or comments, questions.
I I will encourage us please, both in the questions and the answers to favor brevity if possible so we can try and get as many of you in as possible.
With that, I'll open the floor for questions and comments from the panel.
One, small batch, sir.
Hello.
My name is Godfred Ampoma from Amma Foundation.
We operate in West Africa.
My question is, many local organizations are expected to deliver more with fewer resources.
What concrete changes in financing and decision making authority are being considered to move local actors from implementers of humanitarian response to equal partners in set priorities and shaping strategy.
Thank you.
I'll ask you if you want to take a question to please just raise your hand and have a thought.
It was a finance question, I think in many ways, Juliette.
I'm looking at you with a thought whether is there anything that you had any thoughts.
Was your question to anybody in particular, sir? I.
No question.
Katie I was just going to say I won't address the financing portion of it, but I will say that one of the things that we've seen are identified as a key challenge is identifying and reducing risk both and making sure that the risk is not simply transferred to local organizations, which may not be which may be gathering incredible capacity and expertise, but may be more vulnerable to the inevitable shocks and stresses of, as we have seen, an uncertain funding environment, and so looking for ways to, whether it's through partners with donors directly or partners in, say, a consortium model, which helps reduce the overall risk while ensuring that local partners have both the access and the authority to engage and to really maximize the utility of the funding that is being provided.
Okay.
Great.
I can address it at least in the cash space.
One thing that we have seen, I would say over the past maybe five years is we have seen that there is a move to have at least co coordination in the cash working groups with a local national organization.
It's not everywhere.
I don't have a number off of the top of my head.
I can say, at least I know in Kenya, this is the case.
I've seen it happen in Ecuador as well.
That is one place where we're able to see a little bit of shifting power.
It is a co shared space between different types of organizations and so it is a positive development.
The real challenge is that it requires to be able to have a large amount of time.
Often it's never funded really and neither for an international organization or local organization.
That's an area where we continue to push on to have regular coordination for cash irrespective of the type of organization.
Just one practical suggestion.
It's about costs.
We don't fund local organizations.
We fund them to cover the cost of delivering a program, the direct cost.
We do not fund the institution, we not cover indirect costs.
If we don't do that, how are they supposed to survive and grow and have a voice? It's impossible.
They're trying to survive at the moment.
It's not enough.
Just a shout out to pooled funds, Marlena mentioned in her comments about not a pooled fund, but an ecosystem of multiple pooled funds which have a strong evidence base behind them.
They're there, they exist, they deserve nurturing.
There will always be a limit to the number of funding relationships any major donors can handle and therefore, further investment in a diverse range of an ecosystem of funding mechanisms that gives rise to a greater diversity of humanitarian action within any given context seems extremely important.
Thank you all.
Further questions from the audience or comments.
Thank you.
Hello.
My name is Philippe Iller.
I'm here from the humanitarian team of the German mission to the UN.
Thank you very much for your extremely insightful presentation that also held a lot of detailed information that were new to me, at least in my personal capacity.
Germany as one of the major humanitarian donors, of course, as it had been mentioned in the presentation, not to the extent we used to be.
But we remain committed to strengthening the capacity of the humanitarian system and we will seek to maintain our levels of humanitarian funding, of course.
Just on a side note, I think that's just my very personal observation.
It is extremely an extremely difficult space we are operating in also as a donor.
Public pressures also from parliament and domestic audience is extremely high regarding the funding and provision of humanitarian resources.
That is just one thing.
We are under a lot of scrutiny how exactly these resources are being spent when it comes to when it comes to the provision of resources for local actors, it actually surprised me that the share was going down at least in my national capacity, I can say that we have always emphasized in our humanitarian strategy to increase the share of resources for local actors.
It is definitely difficult and just one thing I would like to mention because I heard it from some people in the room, including you, Marlena Gerala, for example, regarding the support to local actors as donors, and many donors would probably say the very same thing.
It is not easy to institutionally fund local actors, especially smaller organizations.
The most efficient tool to provide these resources at scale is the system of the country based pool funds.
We really stand behind that and appreciate the reforms, the steps taken in the humanitarian reset.
Also, I've been pushing for that in our role as chairman of the auto support group.
So just to end it with a question, really, I would like to hear from you what do you think that donors actually can do and Like where do you see actionable steps to change the way the funding system is working? Also taking into account the donor perspective.
Thank you.
Another question there.
Thank you so much.
Jeannette Franer from Lebanon, I'm representing a woman led organization and Near Network.
Thank you so much for Germany for raising this.
If we want to ask donor, what we need is local organization doesn't need any more capacity strengthening and they do not need you don't have to fear from their capacity and the risk that everybody is talking about.
What we need is to trust local organization.
I think a typical example from Lebanon where with all this crisis and this war coming, the first one to respond are local organization and the impact is really there.
However, the fund is decreasing and they are not having a lot of fun.
Regarding the pool fund, the pool fund is really a great solution.
However, we have to think about locally led pool fund and not only the country based pool fund.
Because I guess if you want really to have localization and not just ticking the box for localization, we need to increase the fund for local.
If it's only country based pool fund, the due diligence is very hard for most of the local and women led organization to pass this due diligence.
What we ask donor is really to support locally led pool funds to access more local and to have a relocalization.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Malia.
You're welcome.
It So I have a critique because most of the time the government during the crisis, we are using the package, but we don't need an additional food package.
It's most important to receive loans for the women, for instance, the women have the rights, for instance, why the UN system is not approved a law for the credit for the loans for the women groups.
In Venezuela In Venezuela, the women ask for job.
It's not asking for food packages.
So we need a job because we need to to send our children to their schools.
We we we need dignity.
We want dignity.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Anyone else on the panel, any further? Thank you very much.
We have two more questions and I think those now the hands come up.
Where were you 10 minutes ago? I think we have time for two.
If you wouldn't mind, we'll certainly take the first two and we'll see if we can squeeze in the others as well.
If I could just get all of the questions in a block and we'll try and ask the panel to then discuss them, please.
I will be very quick, Sana with near, sorry for taking the floor again, but it's very interesting to me that especially traditional donors often raised the question of scale.
I just want to say near alone, last year, near members alone, which is 370 some member organizations, but it is a small slice of local organizations, reached 25 million people around the world, which is a quarter of the whole last year's global humanitarian overview that OCHA has reached.
That is a quarter.
Please consider scale when you think of that.
Another example I can give you is that supported three years ago, the starting of six localization labs around the world where local actors come together and coordinate and lead on the agenda.
In three years, we now have 22 localization labs around the world.
If anybody can scale, it's local actors, please, I encourage, especially traditional donors to think critically and dive deeper into what is scale and not necessarily assume that the dominant system is the only thing that produces scale.
Thank you.
Thank you.
There was a question at the end.
Thank you.
Sorry about that.
My colleague from Washington had to step out.
John from the US Mission.
First of all, I want to thank Canada for putting on this briefing and thank all the panelists and speakers for their insights.
Particularly, I also want to recognize our colleague from Thailand for speaking to their efforts to provide access to livelihoods for displaced persons from Myanmar living along the Thailand Myanmar border.
I have visited those camps, and I think that's an extremely commendatory gesture of Thailand and a real model.
Exemplary practice.
Those people will now live in more dignity and will live much more sustainably without relying on humanitarian assistance.
As an ally to Thailand, we're proud to partner with you on that effort.
In terms of some of the comments made today, I will say in our second tranche of contributions to the pooled funds, we have very intently pushed for a more extended timeline for implementation.
We heard loud and clear that the six month timeline, which was not our imposition, I should say, um, was insufficient, so we demanded a minimum 12 month timeline for implementation.
We did so intent also on expanding access to partners.
So we're hearing a lot about localization.
We are working with OSHA to increase access to pooled funds for local partners, including, I think someone raised the due diligence vetting.
This is something that we are in talks about, and it remains our priority to support the best placed partner to meet humanitarian needs on the ground.
Thank you.
Thank you.
There's another question at the back? Yes.
Hello.
My name is Daniella from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Moldova.
But I would like also to mention, first of all, that before joining the MFA, we worked in the humanitarian field, working for the Red Cross in my country for a couple of years during the pandemic and the Ukrainian refugee crisis in the country.
One of the biggest issue of the Red Cross in my country was to get funds at the local level because we are mostly beneficiaries of external assistance, but no assistance at the local level.
It was a huge problem even though legally and fiscally.
Persons in the Republic of Moldova, have the possibility each year, 2% from their taxes that they pay to the government to redistribute to an organization.
Unfortunately, this is not happening and we tried to promote this a couple of times, but for some reason, it is really, really hard for us to get to get local resources.
Maybe some of the panelists will be colleagues who have such experience to guide us on how can we erase local funds.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I will look to the panel for questions to that, which I think is speaking to if I could sum this.
This isn't a failure of imagination on knowing what the solution is, it's a failure of execution on how to deliver it.
If the panel have thoughts on how do local funding start to increase and improve.
Julia, Anthony.
It's not specifically on that question, but just thinking about a few of the comments that have come up around scale and around the viability of increasing funding to local actors.
I think I just wanted to highlight some of the research that's been coming out recently on mutual aid.
Funding directly to civil society groups often unregistered.
Um, and it can be difficult for traditional donors to get funding directly to those.
But there's some really interesting pilots going on, particularly funded by the philanthropies and particularly with women led groups who have very high trust models, which is really proving beginning to demonstrate dividends and there's some really fascinating learning on that.
As Sana said, the issue of scale doesn't have to be exclusive to big heavy mechanisms.
Scale can be achieved in quite a few different ways.
Then I had a second point I've just forgotten.
That was an excellent point to end on.
Unless there's any I I just want to address the point of scale because there is a QR code somewhere around here about one of the reports that are referenced, which has a great name called Show me the Money.
It's on the wall.
This is another data point from there that when we look at scaling multipurpose cash, you'll gain efficiencies really quickly.
If we look at local organizations being really efficient to begin with and we look at them using multipurpose cash, we're really gaining efficiencies as opposed to using certainly local organizations using in kind.
Or anybody using in kind because that really just plateaus out and there's not a lot of way to gain efficiencies with food aid.
It is another argument for scale, another argument for locally led responses.
Thank you, sir.
Just again, maybe touching on scale.
One reflection is that in some contexts, you have fantastic partners at a local level who have the capacity, the network, the skills, and in some other contexts where say Afghanistan or Yemen where the national capacity is completely reduced or imposition of very challenging regulatory reforms or in the context again of Afghanistan where women can't work and girls can't go to school.
I just want to say, we have to look at also when we say increasing national capacity in some places, you have to invest in building that capacity concretely and say this is part of the equation.
One, two is really the letting go, where the bigger entities, the UN entities, bigger organizations have to say, fund this entity directly, not pass through mechanism.
That is political willingness as well.
I think this is also spirit of the reset, where that skill set is there, support it, enhance it, strengthen it, and as the ambassador was saying, use that platform.
You made a good point, Kate, also in some contexts where we don't use consortia enough.
They are fantastic umbrella national partners where you build the capacity together with national partnership, fund the consortia or that umbrella organization that can then do that work.
Again, it doesn't have to go through UN organization or international IGO for that man, it can go directly.
Really looking at these tools of empowerment then you bring the decision making around those consortia and the national partners, and that's where the agency comes in, not just the resources.
Capacity, agency, ownership, and resources because we've focused too much always on just the resources.
Yes, it's important, but that's not the be all and the end all.
In a point.
Um, that is actually going to be time for our question and answer, and I want to thank all of you who contributed to that a rich discussion.
Today's event has brought together two distinct but complementary forms of evidence, the humanitarian financing analysis and the synthesis of the interagency humanitarian evaluations 2015-2025.
They both remind us of the importance of continuously examining humanitarian action.
How is it financed? How is it prioritized? How is it delivered? And critically, how is it put into action? Um, on behalf of the organizers, I would like to thank our presenters and our panelists and all the participants for contributing to today's conversation.
And it is now my distinct pleasure to invite Hans Das, the Deputy Director General of the European Commission as Director General for the European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations DG Echo to deliver the closing remarks, sir, over to you.
To figure out how this works.
All right.
Thank you so much, Mike, and let me begin by thanking the hosts and the organizers for this wonderful event.
It is really actually an honor for me to offer a few remarks at the end of this exchange, which I thought was really timely.
It was rich.
I would even call it exciting and just borrowing a phrase you just used, Mike.
There is no failure of imagination in all of this.
We actually know how we need to move forward.
If there's any failure, it's a failure of implementation and not seeing it true.
And I think that is sort of the spirit that we need to keep in mind.
Um not going to repeat many of the things that have been said, but very clearly, the humanitarian system is under incredible strain at this moment in time for all of the reasons that you mentioned.
Within that context, evidence matters more than ever.
I really want to salute the work that is being done and the two reports that were discussed.
They're very enriching, very relevant, very complimentary, and they're extremely important to us as donors and we just need to act upon them.
And On the European Union side, and I'm not going to talk at length about our approach to this, but we are making a very clear conscious choice to continue to support the existing principled multilateral approach to humanitarian aid.
We still very much believe in that system.
We think it is a good system, but we're also brutally clear and we want to be brutally clear with everybody that it's a system that needs to be reformed and we need to become much more effective in how we deliver and how we work.
Um, a big part of that for us is around collaboration and dealing with the fragmentation that you currently see in the system.
I think you raised the question, Juliette, earlier in one of your slides of what happens to those who are not prioritized.
I fully recognize that that is a legitimate question.
It's a fair question.
But I think the more fundamental question at this moment in time is, how do we serve more people with the money we have and try to become more effective and efficient and cost efficient with the funding that is available so that we enlarge the group of people that can be served and reduce that second group of people that is currently not targeted? I really would plead to put the effectiveness and efficiency question upfront in all of the thinking on this.
I have mentioned this in every meeting I've been in so far, but I will mention it again, supply chain, humanitarian supply chains.
I mean, we're talking about 60% to 70% of the cost of humanitarian aid today.
It cannot be the right approach that everybody just works on their own.
This needs to be consolidated.
It needs to be fully integrated and we very much recognize the ongoing work that's taking place on this, but it needs to be accelerated and it needs to be scaled up.
Cash We very much believe in cash.
We are fully with you, Holly.
Multipurpose cash is the best approach wherever local economies can sustain it.
That is also not to be taken for granted because I've also been in places where beneficiaries actually told me, I don't want the cash.
These places also exist in South Sudan, some parts of the country cannot sustain cash at this moment in time.
But wherever it is possible, this should be the default mode, and this is the approach that we are absolutely favoring and prioritizing in all of our funding.
Um, I don't think the resistance to cash comes from donors necessarily.
I think sometimes it comes from implementing partners.
I think we're certainly with you and we're very happy to work with all of the partners to be more efficient on this.
When Holly says that, and I believe you, Holly, that cash assistance is 37.5% more efficient than food aid in kind.
Well, then that's a statistic we can simply not ignore.
That goes back to this question of how do we serve more people with the funding that today is available.
Um, Marlena, I hear you loud and clear, and I'm fully with you.
Localization.
It's difficult, but it is incredibly important and it is an area where collectively we all need to do better for all the reasons that you and others have mentioned, so I don't need to repeat those reasons and the benefits.
Um, I think the difficulty is in the financing models, and I'll be very open and transparent with you in the EU today.
It is legally impossible for me to fund local organizations directly.
Is that going to change? I don't think so because with all of the scrutiny we have from auditors, from taxpayers, and from everybody, it is not going to go in that direction anytime soon.
We also need to be honest and clear about that.
However, we are committing very clearly that we will, as of next year, we will spend the minimum of 25% of all of our humanitarian funding as directly as possible to local actors.
In some countries, we're far beyond that.
In Ukraine, we are far above 25%.
In other countries, it is more difficult, but the direction of travel is very clear.
We're also stepping up our contributions to the country based pooled funds, not as radically as some others are, but we are stepping up and we're also taking that very seriously.
Um, we think it is the right way to go, and there there's real work for you, Enrique, to make sure that the country based pooled funds favor that localization and really create space for that localization.
Um, we need to be smarter as was said, about how we work on this and you spoke about anticipatory action.
Um, and there I also fully agree.
There's one really cool project we're doing with the World Food Program that I want to mention in one sentence in the Middle East, which currently today is a region that is in complete turmoil and which is very important for us as the European Union.
For a long time, we've been running emergency after emergency and we're now trying to change that.
We've set up a trust fund together, or WFP has set up a fund that will allow them to preposition food stocks and replenish food stocks very clearly whenever something else happens in that region so that we can react much more quickly.
We can anticipate developments and react more quickly when needed.
We're doing lots of anticipatory action in the Americas for the hurricane season.
For the cyclone season.
We know when it's coming, we know how it needs to be responded to, and I think this needs to be rolled out much more broadly.
Data, none of these approaches are possible without credible good data.
We need reliable data.
We need the UN system and the humanitarian system at large to become much better at data and much more joined up, less fragmented.
I also want to pick up on two or three points that were mentioned briefly only, but leadership, and This is about collaboration and it is about leadership.
I think what we need to keep firmly in mind and I'm looking again in the direction of OCHA here is that the real test for the reset is the ability is your ability to bring the others on board and to make sure that the whole humanitarian community rallies behind the reset.
I really encourage you to spend time on that.
I mean, it is it is not going to work unless everybody owns the reset, and we as donors will do our part in that.
We will encourage, we will incentivize, and we will punish eventually if it doesn't work.
But I think it is really something we want to emphasize.
We need to see OCHA leadership in all of this.
We need to see local leadership for the humanitarian and resident coordinators.
We need to have the right people in place who can think broadly, who can think across the different sort of instruments and agencies.
Um Fundamentally, this is also about the role of humanitarian aid in protracted crisis.
We keep using the smallest budget of all budgets to try and solve, very large crisis.
In countries and I'm not going to name countries, but in some countries, we are using the international humanitarian aid budget to provide basic services to the population because governments are failing to do so and because development actors are pulling out.
That's wrong.
That is plainly wrong.
That means that we cannot use that humanitarian aid funding to serve people in other places in urgent need.
We need to work really on that self reliance dimension.
We need to deal with aid dependency and try and promote self reliance, try and promote economic opportunities for beneficiaries and try to be very honest as you said, Henrik, about the limitations of the humanitarian aid system.
I think we're not doing that enough.
Just to finish off, we need more diverse funding sources, philanthropy, the international financial institutions.
We need to bring all of those more on board.
But most importantly, we need to reduce the needs for humanitarian aid and that means working on IHL.
It means ensuring respect for basic rules in armed conflict.
It means ensuring respect for humanitarian access and there collectively, we all need to step up big time.
Thank you so much.
Thank you very, very much, sir.
And I want to thank everybody else for your attendance today.
I wish you a very productive remainder of 2026 Echo and affair segment.
And with those remarks, this meeting is now closed.
Thank you.
Martin.