2026 ECOSOC Meeting on the transition from relief to development - Economic and Social Council, 26th Plenary Meeting

D.
A very good morning.
I call to order the 26th meeting of the Economic and Social Council at its 2026 session.
Excellency's distinguished delegates on behalf of my fellow co chair, His Excellency Wellington Benscomb of the Dominican Republic.
On my own behalf, I'm pleased to welcome you to the one day meeting of the Economic and Social Council on the transition from relief to development.
This meeting is held under agenda item 12, coordination program and other questions.
Its sub items Long term program of support for Haiti, African countries emerging from conflict, and sustainable development in the Sahel.
Excellencys distinguished delegates.
Thank you all for participating in today's meeting.
The theme of this year's meeting on the transition from relief to development, advancing solutions for internally displaced persons and strengthening financing for crisis contacts is a great match for the moment we face today.
The themes for this year's panels are strengthening financing in crisis contexts, promoting partnerships and avoiding fragmentation, and advancing durable solutions for internally displaced persons.
It is my honor to welcome Ambassador Wellington of the Dominican Republic, with whom I have the pleasure and privilege of co chairing this year's meeting, as well as all participants for joining us for this important discussion.
We are meeting at a time of profound global challenges and growing pressure on the international system.
Across the world, armed conflict, climate related shocks, economic fragility and displacement continue to drive severe humanitarian suffering and undermine progress towards sustainable development.
These challenges are exacerbated in many crisis affected settings where humanitarian needs, recovery efforts and longer term development processes unfold simultaneously rather than sequentially reoccurring.
At the same time, many crises are becoming more protracted and this creates immense pressure not only on affected communities, but also on international systems intended to support them.
Too often, humanitarian action is required to operate for years under conditions where development financing, recovery support and broader investment remain limited, fragmented, or delayed.
Next.
In complex contexts where pathways towards development are often nonlinear, the ability to mobilize and align different sources of financing becomes increasingly important.
This is critical to supporting nationally led transitions from crisis response towards more sustainable outcomes in line with the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and its commitment to leaving no one behind.
Today's meeting therefore provides an important opportunity to reflect on how the international community can strengthen complementarity and coherence among all relevant actors.
Humanitarian action cannot resolve the structural drivers of crisis vulnerability and displacement.
Sustained engagement by development actors and international financial institutions is therefore essential, particularly in crisis affected contexts where needs are intensifying and development gains remain under severe pressure.
Today's discussions will focus on two critical issues.
First, how the United Nations system, international financial institutions, and other partners can work together more effectively to reduce fragmentation and strengthen financing support for crisis affected populations amid the current funding crisis.
Second, how we can advance durable solutions for internally displaced persons through stronger national ownership, improved coordination, and more sustained long term engagement.
These are complex challenges.
There are no simple or universal solutions.
Each and every context requires a different approach, and significant operational, political, and financial obstacles remain.
We are also seeing growing recognition that development engagement, recovery support, and financing must begin earlier if we are to reduce prolonged humanitarian dependence and support more sustainable pathways for affected communities.
Today's meeting is about strengthening coherent approaches and improving how different apps work together in support of crisis affected countries and communities.
In this regard, I also wish to underscore the importance of maintaining sustained engagement in countries facing protracted crises, including contexts like Haiti, South Sudan, and the Sahel where humanitarian needs, fragility, and development challenges remain deeply interconnected.
Excellencies, the challenges before us are significant.
But through practical cooperation, sustained political commitment, and stronger complementarity across the international system, we can better support countries and communities facing crises, displacement, and instability.
I now invite His Excellency Wellington Benscom, Vice President of the Economic and Social Council responsible for the 2026 operational activities for Development segmentum permanent representative of the Dominican Republic of the United Nations to make a statement.
Your Excellency, you have the floor.
Excellency Thank you very much, Chair.
Very good morning Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, for me, it's an honor to be with you this morning in this year's Ecosox Transition meeting.
I wish to thank the Vice President of EcoSoc in charge with the 2026 event.
Thank you for your leadership and for your opening remarks.
I also wish to express my gratitude to the UN Deputy Secretary-General miss Amina Mohammed, for her continuous leadership on all of these issues within the UN system.
I also welcome Ambassador Omar Hi Lae, chair of the PBC and Ambassador David Lametti, chair of the Special Advisory Group of Ecoscon Haiti, whose contributions today will help us to go into further depth in our debate.
On the complex interconnected challenges facing crisis affected countries and communities.
Excellency our meeting today is taking place against a backdrop of an increase in the intensity, complexity, and duration of humanitarian crises.
Funding cuts in humanitarian development assistance continue to place immense pressure on countries, communities, and institutions.
According to recent global estimates, more than 120 million people worldwide remain forcibly displaced including record numbers of internally displaced persons with some 82.2 million people living in internal displacement at the end of 2025.
Many remained in place for years or even decades, facing persistent barriers to housing, livelihoods, education, basic services, and social inclusion.
Reductions in ODA, rising debt burdens and minimal foreign divert investment leave countries in crisis contexts with limited fiscal headway and space to invest both in immediate term humanitarian needs and long term sustainable development.
Indeed, official development assistance contracted by 23.1% in real terms in 2025.
This is the largest single year decline on record, returning to levels last seen at the start of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
Added to this, the persistent impacts of the climate crisis, economic shocks and inequalities are making it even harder for countries in crisis contexts to make progress.
Excellencies.
While humanitarian needs and displacement continue to rise, financing systems remain fragmented, uneven, and difficult to access.
In many crisis affected settings, humanitarian actors continue to operate under immense pressure while development financing, recovery support, and investment arrive too slowly or remain insufficient to address the long term dimensions of fragility and displacement.
As a result, many countries and communities remain trapped in prolonged cycles of crisis and vulnerability.
This year's meeting therefore focuses on how the international community can better support transitions from crisis response towards more sustainable and durable pathways forward in line with General Assembly Resolution 75 slash 290 A of the General Assembly and our discussion gives particular attention to those situations in Haiti, South Sudan, and the Sahelm while drawing lessons of broader relevance across crisis affected contexts.
This discussion will move beyond traditional funding silos.
The objective is not simply to mobilize more funding, but to ensure that financing delivers impact, supporting resilience, recovery, and pathways out of recurring crisis.
Excellencies.
Today's meeting offers an opportunity not only to reflect on these challenges, but also to identify practical ways to strengthen cooperation, coherence, and sustained engagement across the international system.
Through stronger partnerships, earlier engagement and more coherent approaches, we can better support countries and communities seeking to move beyond prolonged crisis and displacement toward greater resilience and stability.
I thank you all once again for participating and I look forward to today's discussions.
I now invite the council to view a video message from Her Excellency Amina Mohammed, Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Ambassador Hector Gomez Hernandez, permanent representative of Spain to the United Nations, Ambassador Wellington Ben Cosme, permanent representative of the Dominican Republic to the United Nations.
Excellencies, thank you for inviting me to speak today and thank you for your leadership as chairs of the Ecsumanitarian Affairs Segment and the operational activities for the Development segment.
Ex, ladies and gentlemen, we meet a time of immense challenges to the international order, to our planet, and to our shared humanity.
Crises are lasting longer and displacement is often stretching across decades.
Hundreds of millions of people now require humanitarian assistance, yet humanitarian aid has contracted sharply, even as military spending soars.
At the same time, official development assistance, after two years of deep production, is back where it stood when the 2030 agenda began.
For countries and communities already in crisis, these cuts land especially hard.
They weaken humanitarian responses and slow development, deepening poverty, threatening food security, and impeding gender equality.
For the most vulnerable, it pushes the sustainable development goals further out of reach.
If we are serious about the 2030 agenda, we cannot treat humanitarian action and development as parallel tracks.
They are the same track.
The Secretary-General latest report on our work in South Sudan and the Sahel brings into sharp focus what is at stake when that track is broken and what becomes possible when it holds.
South Sudan shows that progress is possible when humanitarian development and peace building efforts pool together.
But fragile gains can only hold when there is national commitment and predictable financing and a deliberate plan to move communities from emergency response towards self reliance.
The Sahel shows the harder edge of the same lesson, food insecurity, climate shocks, armed groups, and political uncertainty compound one another, driving protracted displacement.
No amount of humanitarian response alone resolves that equation.
Only a transition architecture, one that builds on local capacity, strengthens national systems, and sequences development investment from the earliest stages of a crisis can begin to shift it.
The lessons far beyond the region, they must guide how we reposition.
I encourage member states to engage as that work unfolds.
Excellency, the message is clear, our collective effort is significant, but it must add up to more, and we need to be honest about what has not worked and what must change.
First, development financing must start flowing at the outset of the humanitarian response, and it must be predictable and sustained so affected communities can move from dependency to self reliance and the dignity they deserve.
This requires stronger collaboration between the United Nations and the international financial institutions.
Second, governments must lead.
The transition must be nationally owned, upholding human rights while expanding access to decent jobs, education, services, social protection, and durable solutions with stronger accountability for collective results.
External actors can support and resource that process.
They cannot substitute for it.
Thirdly, we must deepen engagement with local and regional partners.
Real impact happens at the front lines.
Strengthen capacity at the point of delivery is how we save lives today and build lasting change tomorrow.
This is the work we are doing through UN 80 and the regional reset.
But none of this is credible if the United Nations itself does not lead by example.
Coherence within this institution is a precondition for the trust that crisis affected communities deserve and sustainable development demands.
Let us meet these challenges head on with coherence, with foresight, and with the accountability this moment requires.
Thank you.
I thank the Deputy Secretary-General for having so clearly set the stage for today's discussion.
We will now hear from His Excellency, Mr.
Omar Hilale, Chair of the Peace Building Commission and permanent representative of Morocco to the United Nations.
Excellency, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Nice chat.
I would like first of all, to thank the Vice President of Es Excellency Victor Gomez, permanent representative of Spain and His Excellency, Minister Willington, B Coen permanent representative of the Dominican Republic for convening this timely discussion on the need to advance durable solutions for internally displaced persons and strengthen financing in protracted crisis context.
This EcoS Comte on the transition from relief to development at a time when the international community is seeking more coherent and sustainable response to increasingly complex crisis context.
We meet a time when humanitarian needs continue to rise, displacement growth and international financing faces increasing pressures, making it more important than ever to avoid the fragmentation of financing instruments.
Simultaneously, today's crisis reflect increasingly complex interconnected dynamics where humanitarian development and peace building challenges often overlap.
In this context, the transition from relief to development cannot be approached as a linear sequence.
It requires coherent and complementary approaches while upholding humanitarian principles and respecting national ownership to strengthen institutional capacities and sustainable transitions, supported by more coherent and predictable financing.
This approach is reflected in the work of the commission, which has consistently stressed the importance of nationally led peace building approach to strengthen social cohesion and community sustainability.
The resolution of the 2025 Peace Building Architecture Review PB reaffirmed that development, peace and security, and human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing.
They also underscores the need for greater coherence among the United Nations, international financial institutions, and regional partners to support nationally led transitions aimed at preventing relapse into conflict and sustaining recovery.
In connection with today's topics, I would like to share the following observations.
First, addressing a long lasting displacement requires a comprehensive approach that links immediate response with long term solutions.
Sustainable solutions depend on strengthening national and local institution capacities to ensure access to basics, basic services, and economic inclusion for both displaced person and host communities.
Second, sustainable transitions are nationally led and nationally owned, supported by strategic engagement with international financing institutions, consistent with their mandates.
In this regard, the Peace Bique Commission chair and vice chairs, recent meeting with the World Bank Executive Directors on 20 April 2026 and underscores the shared understanding that there can be no sustainable peace without consent investment in development.
It also highlighted the importance of aligning financial instrument more closely with nationally defined priorities in conflict and post conflict situations.
Third, We must consolidate the catalytic role of the peace building fund, PBF.
While the PBF plays a vital role in closing gaps effective, support for nationally owned peace building efforts requires innovative financing in line with the full implementation of relevant resolutions on financing for peace building.
This effort, which strengthened local governance and social cohesions can transform is related interventions into sustainable community stabilization process.
Looking ahead, the challenge is not simply sequencing, but the commission's recent visit to the South African Republic reinforced that transitions are only consolidated when peace dividends are tangible at the community level and reintegration processes are nationally owned and inclusive.
Looking ahead, the challenge is not simply sequencing, but ensuring continued coherence across the system.
We must move toward financing frameworks that go beyond immediate response to strengthen institutional capacities and address the structural drivers of instability.
As recognized in the 2025 Pb resolutions, the United Nations hold a vital role in preventing conflict.
In assisting parties to conflict, and to end hostilities and emerge towards recovery, reconstruction and development, and in mobilizing sustained international attention and assistance.
Excellency, successful transition from relief, which includes adequate and unhindered humanitarian support to affected communities and addressing the needs of those in the most vulnerable situation, Through long term sustainable development must remain oriented toward the needs of all countries, ensuring that internally displaced persons are protected and empowered to regain stability and dignity through inclusive and sustainable solutions.
The Peace Building Commission will continue to promote meaningful coordination and coherence between all relevant actors, ensuring that political attention translates into system impacts on the ground.
I thank you very much.
I thank His Excellency Ambassador Hila for his remarks and for highlighting the important contribution of peace building efforts in addressing fragility and supporting more sustainable pathways forward in crisis affected contexts.
I now invite His Excellency, Mr.
David Lametti, chair of the EcoSc Ad hoc Advisory Group on Haiti and permanent representative of Canada to the United Nations to deliver remarks.
Excellency, you have the floor.
Es Haiti.
The group has continued to work as a platform to foster consistence between humanitarian workers as well as well as working in peace building and development to support Haiti.
In recent months, we brought together partners on several levels, particularly patient authorities, the UN system, international financial institutions and civil society.
The aim was to make progress on an international response that is more sustainable and more coordinated.
Where I met with the Prime Minister, the foreign minister, the Haitian National Police, United Nations leadership, civil society, and representatives of the private sector.
These discussions reinforced a stark reality.
Haiti faces a profound and multidimensional crisis marked by escalated violence, deepening humanitarian needs, and severe institutional fragility.
As we all know, armed gangs have evolved into increasingly structured criminal networks, extending their control over key territories and economic corridors.
Violence continues to drive displacement at a scale.
At scale, disrupt economic activity and limit access to essential services.
Across the country, millions remain in need of assistance and vulnerable populations, particularly women, children and youth, bear the brunt of this crisis.
At the same time, Haitian authorities have been clear in articulating their priorities, restoring security and advancing towards elections.
The international community is mobilizing in support of these objectives, including through the deployment of the gang suppression force.
However, a central conclusion from my visit and one that must guide our collective action is this, Security gains, while essential, will not be sustainable without parallel investments in stabilization, development, and institution building.
This is the essence of the nexus we are discussing here today.
During my exchanges, United Nations agencies and humanitarian actors expressed serious concerns regarding the protection of civilians, the preservation of humanitarian access, as well as the likely scale of population displacement in the context of upcoming security operations.
They also underscored the need to ensure that security interventions are rapidly followed by viable improvements in the daily lives of patients through the restoration of essential services, community policing and access to economic opportunities.
In other words, security efforts must be accompanied by an immediate and credible transition from relief to recovery and from recovery to development.
It is in this context that I would like to note we look forward to the official publication of the Secretary-General letter that outlines options for a Haitian led disarmament, dismantlement, and reintegration program or DDR, as well as support for justice reform and accountability.
This letter is both timely and necessary.
As it will make clear, Haiti is facing a critical window of opportunity.
Security gains generated by the gang suppression force must be translated into durable stabilization through parallel investments in DDR, community violence reduction, and the strengthening of justice and detention systems.
The letter also rightly recognizes that traditional DDR models are not directly applicable to Haiti's context.
Instead, a tailored and pragmatic approach is required, one that addresses the drivers of violence, creates viable pathways for disengagement from armed groups, and supports long term reintegration.
Importantly, it emphasizes the need for differentiated responses, particularly for children and youth at risk of recruitment, as well as for those already associated with gangs.
At present, however, there remains a gap between the anticipated pace of security operations and the readiness of DDR and justice mechanisms.
Bridging this gap will be essential to ensuring that progress is both meaningful and sustainable.
Canada stands firmly alongside Haiti in this effort.
2022-2025, Canada has provided approximately $460 million in international assistance to Haiti, spanning humanitarian action, development cooperation, and peace and security support.
Today, Canada supports 59 active projects across these sectors.
Our engagement is comprehensive.
In the area of security, Canada is supporting the operational readiness and institutional capacity of the Haitian national police, including through training and equipment.
In the area of justice and governance, Canada supports the efforts to combat corruption and impunity, notably through the operationalization of specialized justice units, as well as by strengthening access to justice and accountability mechanisms.
Canada also invests in prevention and reintegration, including through programs that support at risk youth, prevent gang recruitment, and facilitate the safe disengagement and reintegration of individuals affected by violence.
At the same time, Canada remains a committed humanitarian partner supporting food security, nutrition, protection services, and access to basic health care, particularly for women and children.
Finally, we are working to advance longer term resilience, including through support to local economic development, climate adaptation, and the empowerment of women in civil society.
This integrated approach reflects our conviction that durable peace and stability in Haiti will require sustained investments across the full nexus.
Excellencies, Haiti's challenges are considerable, but so too are the opportunities before us.
There is renewed engagement by Haitian authorities.
There is growing alignment within the international community, and there is increasing recognition that short term solutions must be linked to long term solutions.
Our collective responsibility is to act decisively on this understanding, to support a coordinated and sustained approach that bridges relief, recovery, and development, to ensure that security efforts are matched by investments in people and institutions and to accompany Haiti on a path towards stabilization, resilience, and inclusive growth.
As chair of the Ad hoc Advisory Committee, I reaffirm our commitment to supporting these efforts and to continuing to mobilize coordinated international engagement in support of Haiti.
Thank you, Messi Messi.
Thank you, Ambassador Lametti, for your remarks underscoring the importance of sustained international engagement in contexts facing prolonged fragility and instability, including in Haiti.
I will now briefly pause the meeting to allow the podium to be rearranged.
The first panel discussion will begin momentarily.
Please remain seated.
Thank you.
Excellencies, Distinguished delegates.
We shall now hold the first panel discussion on strengthening financing in crisis contexts, promoting partnerships, and avoiding fragmentation.
Recent UN reports from OECD in the UN indicate that official development assistance fell by 23.1% in 2025, the steepest single year decline on record with the humans with humanitarian assistance contracting by 35.8% even as appeals remain severely underfunded across multiple crisis contexts.
This creates difficult operational realities for countries facing conflict, displacement, climate shocks, and economic instability.
In many contexts, prolonged crises continue to strain national systems and limit pathways towards recovery, resilience, and sustainable development.
As a result, transitions become more difficult, vulnerabilities deepen and development, gains remain under pressure.
It also includes improving access to financing, reducing fragmentation, and supporting more sustained engagement in crisis affected settings.
Today's panel focuses on how the international community can work in a more coherent and complementary manner to support countries facing prolonged fragility and instability.
The first panel on strengthening financing in crisis contexts, promoting partnerships and avoiding fragmentation.
We'll examine how we can strengthen financing in crisis contexts by reducing fragmentation, improving coordination, and promoting stronger partnerships.
In particular, the discussion will explore how financing tools, pooled mechanisms, and earlier engagement can better support countries facing fragility, conflict, and repeated shocks.
Today's discussion therefore provides an opportunity to examine practical ways to strengthen partnerships and improve coordination across financing mechanisms and institutions.
Thank.
We will also explore how pooled financing instruments, national financing frameworks and cooperation across the United Nations system can help support more coherent and sustained responses in crisis contexts.
In this regard, United Nations pooled funds, including the joint SDG fund and the Peace Building fund offer concrete examples of how complementary and strategic financing can be deployed across different country contexts and help catalyze additional resources.
It's important to underscore that we will hear perspectives from across the system, including from the Peace Building Support Office, the Development Coordination Office, the European Union, the Inter American Development Bank, also, where the challenges of fragility, displacement, and constrained financing continue to have profound humanitarian and development consequences.
Excellencies, there is growing recognition that development actors, international financial institutions, and the United Nations development system must engage earlier and more consistently in fragile and crisis affected contexts to help reduce vulnerabilities and support sustainable recovery.
In this regard, it is also important that discussions on financing remain grounded in the perspectives and priorities of affected people, including internally displaced persons and local actors working directly in affected communities.
I look forward to today's discussion and to hearing the perspectives and recommendations of our distinguished panelists.
I also welcome our moderator, Mr.
Enrika Ratwa, acting Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, and Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator at the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Ocha, who will conduct the panel discussion.
I look forward to a rich and action focused discussion.
Mr.
Ratwa, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Ambassador Wellington, for setting the stage.
Good morning, Excellencies, distinguished delegates and dear colleagues.
It's an honor for me today, on behalf of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, to be part of and moderate this panel on strengthening finances in crisis context by promoting partnerships and avoiding fragmentation.
As many of the speakers have outlined already, this indeed is very timely and an important issue for us to delve into in this session.
Um, Excellencies, we meet at a very difficult moment where humanitarian emergencies are lasting longer, they are more complex, and they are becoming harder to resolve.
Conflict, climate shocks, food insecurity, displacement, economic instability, and debt are combining to push millions of people deeper into crisis.
We see this clearly in places as mentioned, in Haiti, in South Sudan, in the Sahel, in Afghanistan.
At the same time, geopolitical realities are making building consensus and taking collective action harder just when solidarity is needed the most.
The pressure on humanitarian action has never been greater.
Aid workers are under attack, international humanitarian law is disregarded and access is being blocked and humanitarian needs continue to outpace the available resources.
This year, we have hyper prioritize our appeals to irreducible goal of 87 million people facing the most severe needs at a total cost of $23.6 billion.
So far as we speak, we've received 8.4 billion of that requirement.
We are responding by changing the ways we work.
Through the humanitarian reset launched by the emergency coordinator last year, we are making the system more focused, more efficient, and more effective, at the same time being accountable for the people we serve.
We are prioritizing lifesaving action, cutting duplication, and simplifying processes.
We are shifting power and decision making closer to the communities we serve and to those on the ground.
But let's be clear, humanitarians cannot efficiency cut our way out of this situation.
We need to a step change in development engagement and financing, as many of the colleagues have mentioned, in fragile and crisis affected countries.
There are two reasons why.
First, the nature of fragility itself is changing.
Crises are no longer short shocks followed by recovery.
They are becoming longer, more interconnected, and more entrenched.
Repeated shocks are steadily eroding the very systems, economic, social, and institutional that help communities recover.
Secondly, humanitarian action was never intended to resolve protracted emergencies.
We can save lives and support communities in their worst moments, but humanitarian work cannot replace functioning services, development or political solutions to address systemic challenges.
That is why we as humanitarians are so deeply concerned by the declining official development assistance even before the recent cuts, development financing was already falling.
But projections suggest that up to 92% of the world's extreme poor will live in fragile and conflict affected context by the year 2040, a sobering statistic.
The answer to fragility cannot be less investment.
It must be smarter, earlier and more sustained investment.
We need our development partners, including bilateral donors, international financial institutions to stay engaged when crises hit.
Essential services must be sustained so aid organizations are not left to fill the gaps.
We need investment sooner before crises escalate.
Building resilience, adaptation, and local capacities up front saves lives and money.
We need this investment to be local and to be shaped by the communities themselves.
We cannot do this alone.
We need all hands on deck, each to bring to the table what they do best in terms of the comparative advantages they have.
I hope today's discussion will help identify practical ways to strengthen this cooperation.
Above all, we must keep our focus where it belongs on the people facing this crisis whose experience and leadership must shape the solutions.
I will now give the floor to Ambassador Bencoss any other comments? If not, thank you, sir, for your framing of the discussion.
We will then go straight into our session.
Um We have a distinguished panel today.
Excellencies.
Let me first do a quick introduction before we go into the session itself.
We are fortunate to have Elizabeth Speher, ASG for Peace Building and Peace Support Office.
We have miss Maria Villa Farner, Deputy Director of the Development Coordination Office, Mr.
Hans Das, Deputy DG and Chief Operations Officer from the European Commission's Directorate for Echo.
We have miss Juliana Almeida, Principal specialist, Office of the Special Advisor to the IDB presidency, Inter American Bank Development Bank, and last but not least, miss Liza Guel, head of Secretariat, and the joint SDG Fund.
Each speaker will have approximately 7 minutes for the initial remarks.
Then we open the floor for interactive discussion.
Now let's move to our speaker, miss Elizabeth Spher.
How can peace building investments help catalyze long term financing and strengthen pathways towards resilience and sustainable development in contexts affected by fragility and conflict.
Over to you.
Very much.
Moderator, dear colleague, I hope everyone can hear me well from the back of the room.
I'm really delighted to be here for this panel.
I think it's an extremely important topic that member states have brought to the fore.
Let me say that I very much agree with you, moderator in terms of how you have framed the situation and also the prior speakers with respect to a really difficult situation of a financial environment that's under significant strain.
While crises are becoming more protracted, marginalized, we're witnessing a growth of armed groups, non state armed groups operating in many contexts across the world.
Peace is being challenged in many ways, but even climate change and other factors are additional stressors.
So we basically have a number of contexts across the world in which humanitarian development and peace challenges are indeed deepening simultaneously.
And in order to confront what a number of analysts have called a poly crisis, I really feel that we do need to invest more in stronger partnerships and better coordination to reduce fragmentation and support more systemic, comprehensive and cohesive solutions.
And that's where I think that peace building really comes in.
So allow me to, um, put out a few reflections based on our experience working in the peace building and sustaining peace area of the UN.
First of all, I would put out the point that catalytic peace building investments can help to reduce risk and unlock larger financing.
We've seen that one of the major barriers to investment in fragile contexts is the element of risk.
Whether that risk is perceived or real, risks related to insecurity, political and governance instability, weak rule of law, or social tensions discourage investors and undermine sustainable results.
Peace building actions address many of these risk factors by strengthening institutions, reducing local conflict, and building social cohesion.
I would posit that peace building itself is a de risking mechanism.
Primarily because it is oriented to addressing the root causes of conflict.
In this respect, the peace building fund, which we manage on the Secretary-General behalf at our office, PBPSO is explicitly designed as a risk tolerant fund.
It invests early and flexibly, supporting coherent UN action, and I think that's very important.
It has an integrated effect within our institution among the different entities, and it helps to create the conditions for broader engagement by other stakeholders such as IFIs, DF and others.
I can give you the example very quickly of Colombia, where the investments of the peace building fund early on in areas such as how to deal with the non state armed groups, the very thorny issue of transitional justice and other elements of the peace process gave confidence for others later to invest more fully in supporting the peace process in Colombia.
A second point that I would like to make in terms of peace building investments and their role is that peace building investments can ensure that the P of the famous HDP nexus is fully realized.
I think you can talk to many colleagues across the system who are often mentioning that the P is frequently the weakest link in our humanitarian development and peace action.
The role of peace building is precisely to help fill in that gap.
I can give you a few examples of how that has happened, I think, very usefully.
Um, in the Central African Republic, the Peace Building Fund partnered with the African Development Bank to support locally owned initiatives that brought together returnees, internally displaced persons, and host communities through livelihoods and agriculture.
Regularly a relatively modest investment of $2 million helped to unlock a $30 million African Development Bank program.
Demonstrating how targeted peace building investments can de risk development financing at scale.
It also brought in, as I was saying, the P of the HDP.
The role of the two institutions are clearly complementary.
The PBF is focusing in this initiative on social cohesion, community engagement, and ensuring conflict sensitivity among returnees, IDPs and host communities, while the African Development Bank supports economic recovery and livelihoods, creating a pathway toward longer term resilience.
So both de risking, but also bringing in the peace angle to an otherwise a fairly large development exercise.
A second example of what we've been able to do, again, bringing in the international financial institutions, which is very important, is taking place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In that case, we see how partnership operates at a more structural level.
We have a UN IFI partnership facility, which is a complementary mechanism to the peace building fund in our office, and it has deployed a UN IFI liaison officer to the resident coordinator's office.
And this individual has helped to move the UN partnerships with institutions such as the World Bank and the African Development Bank in the DRC context from coordination to joint engagement driven by peace and governance milestones.
The PDF is also coming in and helping to address the structural constraints that limit access to development financing, including by supporting the development of a peace governance architecture that can help unlock access to instruments such as the World Bank's prevention and resilience allocation or the P.
So bringing in the peace building funding, the peace sensibility, the peace angle that allows a country to attain or work towards peace and governance milestones that then helps to unlock additional concessional financing from the banks.
These are very, I think, interesting examples.
In Chad, the UN contributed to the development of some of the milestones identified in the World Bank Prevention and resilience allocation, and the Peace Building fund again is directly supporting the government in achieving a number of these milestones.
Um, a third element I'd like to bring to the table is that reducing fragmentation requires aligning financing across the system and not just increasing it.
Again, peace building financing can play a very interesting role in this respect.
What we've seen through our work here within the UN is that fragmentation is not just about funding gaps, it's also about how financing is structured.
Declining core funding and increasingly short term earmarking have made the system more projectized, less flexible, and ultimately less effective.
Pooled funds, such as the peace building fund can help counter this fragmentation.
When strategically designed, they can enable collective action across the UN system and again across the humanitarian development and peace nexus, especially utilizing and strengthening the role of the resident coordinator.
As emphasized in ongoing UNAD discussions, the priority is greater coherence across financing instruments, not treating them as standalone streams, but as part of a unified and strategic approach.
A positive example is from Somalia where the peace building Fund and the Somalia joint Fund, a country level pooled fund, have worked in a complementary way with the PBF supporting upstream catalytic actions, piloting innovative approaches and reducing risk.
From a peace lens, while the Somalia joint fund scales successful initiatives through larger longer term financing.
This has been the case, for example, with the Women Peace and Protection Program in the country.
I also wanted to mention that in terms of bringing in the IFIs and working more effectively with them and thus enhancing the longer term financing pathways, we have found it to be very important to invest in shared analysis, joint assessments, common fragility diagnostics, and shared data platforms.
In our role of trying to build a more strategic partnership between the UN system and the IFIs for building and sustaining peace.
We have very much promoted and facilitated the coordination of analyses and assessments with international financial institutions, World Bank, African Development Bank, IDB, who is here in American Development Bank and others whenever possible.
A fourth and related lesson is that aligning financing instruments does not happen automatically, it has to be actively managed.
The way we see the ecosystem here at the UN, humanitarian pooled funds are there to address immediate needs.
UN multi partner trust funds can support early recovery and governance and IFI financing beyond the UN system can help to scale investments over the long term.
But these are not separate phases.
They have to operate in parallel, reinforcing one another and aligning with nationally led processes.
Peace building can play a critical role here, acting as a connector across this continuum and again across the nexus by addressing both the causes and effects of conflict, reducing the risk of further humanitarian needs while simultaneously setting the stage for larger development financing.
Depending on the context, peace building actions can range from rule of law and justice support, transitional justice, reintegration of former combatants and displaced persons, and support for greater inclusion and governance, including of youth and women.
Also, I should perhaps add that, as has been stated before by the PBC chair, The ultimate guiding principle for peace building work at the UN is national ownership, also always making sure that the country concerned is at the center of all that we do and all that we support.
Finally, although I will not address it in depth at this moment, I do want to also mention the critical role of the private sector.
In terms of really bringing financing to scale, I think we've all come to the conclusion that we need, as the PBC chair also mentioned, to look into innovative financing.
One of those aspects is the role of the private sector.
And we have been looking very much in the peace building area at the UN at stimulating and facilitating what we call peace positive private sector investment in fragile and conflict affected contexts.
We are working actively.
It is still in early days, but we are working actively at seeing how peace building can both nurture the conditions for responsible private investment with peace intentionality and how to leverage private sector engagement in support of peace and sustainable development, particularly at the local level with micro, small and medium enterprises.
I thank you.
Thank you very much.
Let me now turn to my colleague, Maria, Deputy Director of DCO.
My question to you, Maria is, from a DCO perspective, how is sequencing across pool funds operationalized in practice and how is complementarity ensured across different contexts? How are pool fund mechanisms converting coordination gains into scaled investments for the SDGs.
You have the floor.
So let me start by commending the leadership of our two vice presidents for convening us on this timely discussion at a moment where such pressures on ODA, but at the same time of rising needs.
In particular, if I may recognize Spain's continued support for innovative and catalytic financing mechanism, including the joins the GFN and not only advocating for the power of coordination, but actually funding it.
So in my answer, I would like to unpack the following three issues.
First, the role that resident coordinators and humanitarian coordinators play, sometimes I would say against the odds in improving complementarity and articulation of our financial sources, in particular pool funds.
Second, I would like to explore how we need to see beyond the idea of sequencing over time and explore other logics by which our financial instruments can better cooperate.
Third, I want to advocate for the role pool funds have already played in crisis settings to bring about innovative partnerships with the private sector.
So on the first point, let me say the prone.
Today, sequencing across pool funds happens thanks to country level leadership and planning frameworks, rather than through formal links between individual funds, let alone structural arrangements or incentives agreed in these headquarters.
We see this most clearly in complex settings like the DRC, which in 2024 received financing from 17 different pool funds, a reality that resonates in other places like Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, Mozabique or even Colombia where I served for the last five years.
So in settings where multiple pool funds streams are available for UN operations, the resident coordinator with a single, double or triple hatted has the opportunity, and I would say the responsibility to manage these resources as a coherent portfolio rather than as a collection of separate funds or wars yet projects.
This means understanding the full picture, identifying the gaps and overlaps, sequencing investments, aligning resources behind identify priorities and needs, translating priorities into investment platforms capable of attracting larger sources of financing and measuring and communicated the collective results.
But it also means having the authority, the right governance, and access to information.
Coordination is at its best when it sees beyond UN agencies or humanitarian organizations and secures complementarity with local governments, IFIs, development banks, and other partners around shared priorities and investment opportunities.
It is also at its best when it helps the risk funding of financing decisions, something we face both in humanitarian settings and peace building, but also when trying to scale up private investments for SDG acceleration.
Now, let's be frank though, because the current state of pool funding at country level shows some important imbalances.
While country level pool funding architecture exist across all pillars, the financing itself remains heavily concentrated in humanitarian and peace building instruments.
Country level pool funding accounted for 55% of all pooled funding globally in 2024, yet only a relatively small portion of that country level portfolio is dedicated to long term MG implementation through development oriented pool funds.
As a result, R CHCs frequently have stronger visibility and decision making over humanitarian and peace building financing than over the full range of development resources.
Yet they are the same person.
On to my second point, different pool funds play different roles along this continuum.
Humanitarian funds such as the SRF or country based pool funds provide rapid financing for life saving response and protection.
The peace building fund provides catalytic financing for prevention, social cohesion, and transition opportunities, and development oriented pool funds, including country SDG funds and the joint SDG fund support policy reform, institution building, and longer term SDG implementation.
Together, these instruments can help countries move from crisis response towards resilience recovery and sustainable development.
I have seen this happen when following a SRV intervention in response to a large displacement shock in the Catatumbo region in Colombia, we mobilize our local MPTFRP to accompany the return not only of the displaced people, but of the institutions responsible for their protection and the private financial sector through bank guarantees for local farmers that used to cultivate coca.
So in addition to articulating according to these differentiated mandates or over intervention timelines, there are two strong perspectives that the right complementarity between funds could also contribute to and are critical in transition settings.
First, the territorial approach, conflict affected countries or territories having common, weak or absent altogether state presence.
Lifting institutional, productive and social capacities takes a 360 perspective and a portfolio approach to our efforts.
Allowing a development offer that is grounded at the subnational level is key if we want our planning processes to converge with humanitarian area based responses.
Second, our localization efforts.
While we're starting to scale up our support to local and national partners in humanitarian pool funds, strengthening their capacities to lead the response and long term investments is a must and something that other instruments can also contribute to.
But the future sequencing is not only about ensuring that the Serve, the peace Building fund and the Journeys the GF work well together.
It's about enabling our Cs to manage the full country level fund portfolio as a coherent investment platform where private investments can also come in.
This is my third point.
In many contexts, the challenge is increasingly not the absence of financing, but investment readiness, developing credible pipelines, structuring financing propositions, reducing risk and aligning multiple financing sources behind what are nationally owned priorities.
The Somalia Joint Fund offers an instructive example, unlike funds that are organized around a single sector mandate, it provides a platform that can finance governance, rule of law, local development, social development, economic recovery, climate resilience, and social cohesion within one and the same portfolio.
It therefore breaches humanitarian response, peace building and sustainable development while providing government donors and the UN country team and the resident coordinator with a full and common framework for prioritization and investment.
The MPTF for peace in Colombia showed us also in unambiguous terms, how the peace Building fund investments opened the door to working with the private sector through several rounds of lended finance investments that have created productive inclusion and environmental sustainability in the poorest and more conflicted regions of the country.
Over seven years, we developed 18 initiatives.
We leverage some $70 million launching acceleration programs for ex combatants, supporting tax based investment mechanisms, credit guarantees, and results based financing.
Progressively more sophisticated instruments follow, all building on the foundation of those first PBF investments.
They have now permeated our broader portfolio, which has now some 30 programs that include financial vehicles that allow us to deliver on the promise of leveraging our grant resources.
By working with the fintech community, with private banks and development banks, our work goes much further and it's more sustainable.
My point in short, is that pool funds have an increasingly catalytic role helping countries move from priorities to investment pipelines, from investment pipelines to financing transactions, and from fragmented interventions to larger scale investments.
It is happening and needs to be the standard for the future.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mireia.
Now, let me turn to the Deputy Director General and Chief Operations Officer of the Echo.
1 second here, please.
From the European Union's perspective, what more can be done to help sustain predictable international engagement and financing in this context that we've talked about, particularly in situations where crisis becomes increasingly protracted and humanitarian needs, recovery efforts, and long term development priorities unfold simultaneously? You have the floor.
Thank you very much and good morning to all of you.
Thank you very much for the invitation and thank you for putting the spotlight on the transition from relief to development that is very much appreciated from our side.
Dear moderator, dear Excellencies, on the 27th of May, the European Commission adopted a policy document in our jargon.
It's called a joint communication, setting out our vision for humanitarian aid and explaining our approach to humanitarian aid in the future.
That communication, we are committing to remain fully engaged, also in fragile context and to continue to be a reliable, predictable, principled donor that believes in the multilateral system.
That policy document is structured along three pillars.
It is about that is about protecting international humanitarian law, protecting aid workers, et cetera It is about perform, and that is about how we need to make the humanitarian system more efficient and deliver better.
And finally, it is about partnering, and that's the part I want to focus on because that's where we explain or where we set out the need for more strategic alliances between development, humanitarian development, and these actors, but also more strategic alliances between all of these actors and the private sector and international financial institutions.
In our joint communication, we are committing, and that is the humanitarian and the development part of the European Commission, we are committing to a more integrated approach to fragile settings.
We will work on the basis of common assessments, we will work on the basis of joint data for fragile settings.
We will develop a common understanding of needs and of the priority sectors where intervention is needed, and we will try to work along a joint strategy in parallel.
We will do that within the European Commission, but we will also try to develop that at European level in a team Europe approach.
Humanitarian aid remains essential as a first line of response to alleviate urgent humanitarian needs.
But humanitarian aid alone can never be sufficient to today's protracted crisis.
We need more sustainable solutions.
We need to increase self reliance and livelihoods for the beneficiaries and we need to strengthen the financial inclusion of vulnerable individuals.
By doing that, we need to look for win win solutions.
We need to look for economic opportunities that benefit the humanitarian beneficiaries, but also the host communities.
In recent weeks, I was on mission to South Sudan and to Bangladesh and in both cases, I see humanitarian partners making incredible efforts to deliver much needed vital support.
In the case of Bangladesh, partners are doing excellent work to support 1.2 million refugees in the Cox’s Bazar camp.
After nine years, these 1.2 million refugees are entirely dependent on humanitarian aid, and that is obviously not a sustainable solution in today's context with more crisis and less funding available.
We need to find better ways to enable beneficiaries of humanitarian aid to contribute to daily life and to meaningfully participate in local economies.
That will reduce their negative coping mechanisms.
It will promote their dignity and it will ease long term pressure on the humanitarian aid response.
And that's why that humanitarian development piece nexus is so critically important.
In addition to that joint and more integrated approach that I just mentioned, our document also announces new initiatives, first of all, in relation to the private sector and secondly in relation to international financial institutions.
Together with the World Economic Forum, we will be launching a global platform for engagement with the private sector in fragile settings.
We need to find better ways to allow the private sector to provide funding at scale for fragile settings.
It's an issue we have talked a lot about over the last few years, but at this time, we start exploring in a much more granular way how it can be done and try to be very pragmatic about it.
This platform will go into all forms of private sector engagement, and we'll try to support where needed.
Secondly, we are announcing in our communication new initiatives with international financial institutes, in particular around blended finance.
We have led over the last few years, a number of small scale pilot projects where we use blended financing methodologies.
These were projects for small amounts, but they have generated quite significant amounts of private investment funding afterwards.
We see very positive results from these pilot projects and we are firmly committed to scaling them up.
As Elizabeth was mentioning earlier, de risking is absolutely critical in all of this, to unlock resources and to give confidence and to create a climate where investments can be made more substantially.
Excellencies, there is still much to learn in this area, but we also have good examples to build from and to work from and to start from.
My development colleagues have mentioned an example to me about Kenya, where we partnered with the ICF to set up a challenge fund to attract private business investment in refugee settings.
It has been extremely successful.
It has been able to boost local economy and to create jobs both for refugees, displaced persons, and for the host communities.
So in our policy document, we are committing to scale up and to have more of these projects in each of the regions we are active in.
In short, this is an area where we need to strengthen our cooperation.
We need to see more collaboration between the UN, between the donors, the IFIs, and the private sector.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Deputy DG Hans.
Let me now move on to miss Juliana Almeida, principal specialist, special advisor at the IDB presidency.
My question to you is what financing tools and instruments are the international financial institutions advancing to ensure that immediate term financing for crisis is paving the way for long term financing for sustainable development? What are some concrete examples of how these tools have been used to that end? The flow sis.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here and thank you for including financial institution into this debate.
First, I would like just to point out that natural disaster are no longer rare shocks as we all see, but they're becoming systemic risk not only to the SDGs activement but for fiscal stability.
What the MDBs have been doing and I will lay out in the case of the IDB in particular, but we see that the MDBs are coming together to scale finance and innovative solutions to help countries, government, but also the private sector, to manage disaster related risk and to strengthen, most importantly, long term resilience.
In the case of the IDB group, this expansion includes increasing disaster risk coverage and new instruments for government and private sector.
I'd like to mention a few of them.
We have the contingent credit line for natural disaster.
We have expanded that also to include health crisis after COVID.
We have added 2 billion into that facility and we are ready to approve, just to give an idea, 5 billion in contingent credit line for this kind of disaster.
Mostly climate and health related.
The contingency credit line, how it works, it is approved before a natural event happens and when the event happens, it triggers very easily and fast through a Fast Track process, the disbursement of the amount that has been previously approved.
We also start including more and more what we call climate resilience debt clause.
What it does it's allow countries to pause the debt payment for two years when an event happens.
So far, this has been included in loan contracts that are worth more than $4 billion in coverage.
We have pioneer regional disaster risk transfer program to help countries transfer extreme event risk to insurance and to capital markets.
But I also would like to point out that disasters are not only a one time fiscal, they do not impose just one time fiscal costs.
They shift the trajectory of public debt and that's a very important aspect to take into account.
Cross country evidence show us that for emerging market, we have an increase in debt to GDP ratios of more than 2% after a major event happens.
So in this case, it's also important, in particular for the MDBs to scale support without increasing debt pressure in countries.
I believe that we are well positioned to reduce that debt pressure.
I'll give you an example of the debt swaps for development that are peaking now a very important pace.
We have launched last year what we are calling the Caribbean Multi guarantor facility for debt for resilience swap.
And what it does is it streamline and fast track coordination and complementarity among financial institutions.
The goal is to scale up size and number of swaps.
So that allow the government to buy back their debt and refinance under better terms and the savings from that lower interest rate is channeled to specific aspects.
In the case of this facility, is channeled to resilience related projects to create that long term resilience that I mentioned before.
So we are piloting this.
We have done several debt swaps, debt swap for nature, for resilience for climate in general.
But what we are doing now is a pilot in Barbados.
This is the first time that we have four MDBs working in a debt swap together, IDB, the World Bank, the Caribbean Development Bank, and CAF working together and the savings will be invested in the area of health resilience.
I also would like to stress a very recent effort with OCHA on an analysis to answer the question of the fiscal impacts of anticipatory action ahead of a disaster.
What we are trying to see an answer is, is it worth it investing in anticipatory action? So we are analyzing few case using in particular OCHA data.
And in the case of Honduras to give you an example, which is our best documented case, it shows that for every dollar invested in anticipatory action, we are generating 1.69 in fiscal savings.
So is it it's worth? But it's under certain conditions, not in all cases will be worth, especially when the forecasts are accute, the disaster frequency is meaningful and the administrative costs of the program are not too large.
Anticipatory action should be evaluated not just as a humanitarian tool, but also as a fiscal instrument and that's something that we want to make the point, in particular before the Ministers of Finance, which are our the head of our constituencies.
They are the ones that prioritize that decide where the investments are going to.
It is important to make the case before ministers of Finance.
We are also assessing with OCHA an effective instrument to provide support ahead of a disaster.
Most of our instruments happen for to help countries post disaster, even when they approve it beforehand.
But we are thinking about how can we support with anticipatory and anticipatory action.
I'd like to stress in this final remark that as have been said before, and I think the moderator and all my colleagues that spoke before me, this is not just about providing more finance.
I gave you some numbers, but this is not just about more finance.
It's how we deliver, how we can do it more effectively in a more effective way.
We need to bring together all the different actors, bring not only the humanitarian agents, also the financial institutions.
A as has been said before by Elizabeth, I would like to stress the role of the private sector.
We cannot do all this alone without the private sector mobilization as well and we need to take advantage of each other actor strength.
The IDB welcome the opportunity to be here and participate in this important discussion.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, miss Almeida.
Now, let me turn to miss Liza Kubel the head of Secretariat for the joint SDG fund.
My question to you is in the context of shrinking ODA and the increasing demand for concessional finance, both for humanitarian needs and development efforts, what are some concrete actions that can be taken to reduce fragmentation and enhance the collaboration between the United Nations system, IFIs, and other partners to ensure that crisis affected countries are receiving the support that they need? The floor is yours.
Thank you Chair, Excellencies, colleagues, it's a pleasure to be here and to brief you on the role of the joint SDG fund, one of the development financing sectors flagships within the UN system alongside the peace building fund, which was presented just a moment ago and of course, the SRF led by OCHA.
How do we activate SDG investments in these complex settings? How do we bring the best to bear of what the resident coordinator system can deliver? The joint SDG fund was established as an element of repositioning the UN development system to deliver the integrated support that no single agency, and in the case of Haiti, perhaps no single pooled fund can deliver alone.
We work as a platform to turn seed capital into transformative investments.
To date, we have this benefit of de risking, as was pointed out by the EU, de risking investments where otherwise the private sector may not go to unlock an additional $8 billion.
For every dollar so far invested into the joint SDG fund, we've been able to leverage that to 20.
The fund is positioned to complete the three pillar financing offer that really would unite us across humanitarian action, peace building, and development.
It's within this consolidation point that you really do land at country level with that leadership alongside government to ensure that we're bringing the comparative advantages that reflect both the crisis and transition settings with the catalytic and integrative role of a pooled fund.
So how does the sequencing operationalize? How can I explain this to you in a practical way? Well, it's driven by country level leadership, and that's where your support to that resident coordinator and humanitarian coordinator system is so critical because it's through those planned frameworks that we can actually avoid being individual funds linked at headquarters and actually a investment platform at the country level.
And we will be working alongside that team on the ground to make sure that as the SRF delivers rapid lifesaving humanitarian responses and the peace building fund provides catalytic financing for prevention and social cohesion, that we will carry the longer term work of policy reform, institution building, and economic transformation.
Ambassador Le Mette of Canada reminded us that as the gang suppression force focuses on DDR, parallel investments and development will be urgently needed.
There has to be an alternative to violence provided to these young people that have been gripped by violence and gripped by the poverty and the conflict.
Timing really is everything in Haiti.
We have to ensure that the security and the humanitarian gains that are made by that gang suppression force are quickly followed by visible, easy to understand socioeconomic dividends.
It's a fragile window of opportunity and it has to be translated rapidly into recovery rather than relapse.
The resident coordinator has to manage multiple streams as a coherent portfolio, rather than a collection of separate funds doing separate things.
You have to see the full picture for success in Haiti, identify the gaps and the overlaps, sequence the investments as relevant over time, and align them behind and with nationally owned priorities.
The incredible opportunity is when pooled mechanisms convert this coordination, this sequencing, this timing into scaled investments.
The joint fund has had success in doing that, and we're keen to show that we can do the same in Haiti and it's by a decisive shift away from individual projects to coherent investment platforms.
It's trying to really finance impact rather than sectors, and it's trying to make the missing links across the humanitarian development and peace nexus.
Specifically in Haiti, we are at the government's request and DSRSGRCHC leadership, the UN is consolidating financing behind a single country level multi partner trust fund, and that will be anchored in the cooperation framework.
It will be structured around three windows, disarmament and reintegration, socioeconomic and territorial recovery, justice and corrections.
Our role would be to focus on socioeconomic and territorial recovery.
And our goal is to be deliberately catalytic.
It's to anchor investment in community led economic recovery, to de risk it, to signal confidence in a Haitian led architecture, and to crowd in additional partners around accelerators like food systems, youth, and community recovery.
This will all be explicitly designed to complement and not duplicate the work of the SRF and the PBF.
I recognize that Haiti's recoverable is inseparable from its shared border with the Dominican Republic.
We'd like to pair our de risking of the funding in Haiti with additional contributions to the Dominican Republic for joint programming on livelihoods and resilience.
We want to advance the durable and regional coherent solutions together.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Lisa.
We will now open the discussions for questions and comments from the floor and for the delegates to indicate their interest by pressing the microphone button.
And to remember that this session is intended to be an interactive session with the panel speakers.
As such, I would also appeal for your interventions to be brief and not to exceed the three minute timeline.
The floor is open.
I would like to give the floor now to Egypt.
Egypt, do you have the flow? Thank you very much, Vice President and thanks to all the panelists for their presentations on these very important topics.
Egypt would like to express its concern over the fact that the total contribution to operational activities for development and humanitarian assistance amounted to 45.2 billion in 2024 down 17% from its 2022 peak.
This has had its effect on the delivery of assistance in countries such as South Sudan and the Sahel where some of the um Very important needs are not met.
The effectiveness of the funding system is increasingly linked not only to the volume of funding available, but also the quality, flexibility, and accessibility of that funding.
Current funding trends remain a source of concern.
The share of core resources has continued to decline over time, while earmarked contributions account for an increasing proportion of overall funding.
Although earmarked funding can respond to specific priorities of contributors, excessive earmarking can create fragmentation across the system.
Core resources remain the foundation of a multilateral and country driven assistance system.
They enable UN entities to support integrated approaches, strengthen coordination, respond to emerging challenges.
We urge developed countries to continue providing humanitarian funding, and in this context, it's essential to distinguish between developmental finance and humanitarian finance.
The peace Building fund has demonstrated its value as one of the United Nations most agile and catalytic financing instruments in fragile and conflict affected settings.
Beyond the volume of resources it provides, its comparative advantage lies in its ability to mobilize early and flexible financing for priorities that are often overlooked by traditional funding streams, helping to address drivers of conflict, strengthen national institutions, foster social cohesion, and create conditions for sustainable development.
At the same time, the effectiveness and sustainability of peace building fund investments depend fundamentally on strong national ownership.
The identification of priorities and the design of projects should be driven by nationally defined needs and strategies in close consultations with national authorities and local stakeholders.
Equally important is robust coordination among national institutions, UN country teams, resident coordinators, and relevant headquarters entities to ensure that PBF supported interventions are fully aligned with broader national development and peace building objectives.
I thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you, sir.
I will now give the floor to Costa Rica.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Moderator, Excellencies, distinguished delegates.
Costa Rica thanks the panelists for their statements and shared the thoughts they shared.
We're meeting at a time in which crises, economic crisis and climate change are undermining our societies and these crises aren't occurring in isolation.
We can not respond to the Crises of the 21st century with financial tools from the last century.
We are expressing solidarity with the principles of the charter, but we must also evolve to respond to growing demand.
Innovative financing and diversification through non traditional donors can strengthen our collective ability to respond.
Joint UN financing mechanisms, including the peace building fund, show how timely and catalytical investments can bring about immediate responses, bridge financing gaps, and mobilize additional resources in order to help to consolidate peace.
International financing must strengthen national and local capacities, but never replace them.
International alliances must empower local actors and broaden opportunities for communities to forge their own future.
Currently, 230 million people require urgent humanitarian assistance.
Nevertheless, in 2025, only 34.8% of the resources required were allocated leaving millions of people without the aid that they require.
That this gap persists year by year is profoundly concerning.
Costa Rica's experience shows that multilateral alliances bring about lasting results and therefore they must be strengthened and not weakened.
Our world is facing an unprecedented fragmentation that we've not seen since the UN was founded.
Without financial multilateralism to address these crises, we are wasting valuable time and not saving the lives we could.
Investing in multilateral cooperation, innovative financing, and resilience is a strategic need for the whole world.
It is not an option.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I will now give the floor to Croatia.
Thank you, Mr.
Vice President.
At the outset, I would like to thank the organizers for this important discussion, as well as to panelists for sharing their valuable insights.
The gap between rising needs and shrinking ODA is widening.
Crisis affected countries face simultaneous humanitarian development and peace challenges, yet financing remains fragmented.
To respond effectively, we must strengthen partnerships and reduce duplication across the UN, international financial institutions, and other actors.
The humanitarian Development Peace nexus must guide our approach, not as a slogan, but as an operational framework.
First, we need joint analysis and shared planning.
When the UN, the World Bank, and regional banks use common diagnostics, countries receive coherent support instead of parallel missions.
Nexus aligned, country platforms can align humanitarian response, development, investment, and peace building priorities behind nationally led prevention strategies.
Second, IFIs are advancing tools that bridge immediate crisis response with long term development.
Crisis response windows, contingent emergency lines, and catastrophe triggered financing allow rapid disbursement while preserving fiscal space for future investment.
Third, pooled funds must work as a sequence.
SRF provides life saving liquidity.
Country based pool funds support localized response.
The Peace Building fund invests in prevention and institutional building.
Among other priorities and is an important tool for peace building and sustaining peace.
Croatia has consistently contributed to the PBF and will continue to do so.
However, to maximize impact, pool mechanisms must be linked to IF pipelines so that coordination gains translate into larger long term financing flows.
Finally, member states must increase flexible multi year contributions.
Predictability is the foundation of collaboration.
Without it, no reform can succeed.
Croatia believes that strengthening financing in crisis contexts requires a genuinely multilateral approach, shared analysis, aligned incentives, and financing, the moves from emergency response to sustainable development and peace.
We remain committed to working with our partners to achieve this.
Thank you, Mr.
Vice President.
Thank you.
Now I will give the floor to Guatemala.
Excellen Excellency, Vice President of EcoSc, distinguished moderator, distinguished delegates, a very good morning.
I wish to begin by thanking each and every one of the briefers for their presentation this morning and tell you that the debate on financing and contexts with crisis is taking place at a particularly challenging juncture that is characterized by a convergence of humanitarian, economic, and climatic crises that has significantly increased needs.
While ODA is still under pressure.
For Guatemala, the main challenge does not only lie in a lack of financing, but also in the way that it is fragmented but limits its impact and makes it difficult to build sustainable solutions.
In response, Guatemala has engaged in mechanisms that are focused on improving the coherence, coordination, and efficacy of international financing.
In this regard, we can underscore the results achieved thanks to the support of the United States government channeled through the UN system In 2026, Guatemala received $60 million for the regional fund for Latin America and the Caribbean managed by OCHA that was implemented through the country team in coordination with national authorities and societies.
This effort strengthened the articulation between different stakeholders and the alignment with national priorities.
It's therefore essential to strategically boost this financing and ensure that it's focused on preventive actions to prevent the negative impacts of phenomena in the region like the El Nino phenomenon, to provide food assistance to communities affected by drought and improve access to safe drinking water and boost early warning systems, risk management, and community resilience.
Similarly, the use of evidence based tools such as humanitarian response plans have contributed to a more strategic and timely allocation of resources to the most vulnerable populations.
Nevertheless, there are still structural challenges.
It's essential to move towards more predictable, accessible, and sustainable financing mechanisms as well as to strengthen coordination between the UN system international financial institutions and other key stakeholders.
Guatemala reiterates the importance of promoting comprehensive approaches that articulate humanitarian financial and development provisions through a results based approach.
It's only through concerted, coherent and sustained actions that we will be able to guarantee more effective responses and adequately support countries in a context of crisis.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Sweden, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair, Vice President, colleagues, Sweden is deeply concerned that at a moment of unprecedented needs, global ODA and humanitarian funding is declining rapidly.
In this context, we see three priorities.
These are not new and I will echo what others have already said, which is good because we are aligned on priorities.
First, we must reduce fragmentation by aligning humanitarian development and peace financing around shared analysis and collective outcomes.
Second, we need to make better use of existing instruments.
UM pooled funds, including SARS, the Peace Building Fund, and the joint SDG fund can play a catalytic role when they are sequenced with IFI tools and risk tolerant financing.
Sweden encourages deeper collaboration between UN managed funds and IFIs to ensure that short term crisis response genuinely paves the way for long term development pathways.
Third, expanding predictable multi year financing allows communities, governments, and the international system to plan beyond the next shock.
Colleagues, the choice before us is clear.
Either we allow fragmentation to deepen or we commit to a more coherent, partnership driven approach that delivers for people living through crisis.
Sweden stands ready to work with all the partners to advance this agenda.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The United Kingdom, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair and thanks to the panel for the insightful discussion.
The UK agrees that fragmentation across the development finance system is a major barrier to impact in crisis contexts.
Our focus is on how we better use existing tools and partnership to deliver more coherent, accessible, and catalytic support.
First, we welcome the World Bank's strengthened approach to fragile and conflict effective settings.
With a growing share of extreme poverty concentrated in these contexts, it is critical that the bank remains engaged, including through partners where government systems are constrained.
We have consistently called for stronger collaboration between the bank and the UN system, particularly in crisis contexts where humanitarian development and peace efforts must be aligned.
Secondly, we are working with partners to scale more shock responsive financing, including prearranged financing.
Through the severe platform faction, we are supporting a shift towards financing that is greed in advance of crises.
Alongside this, the UK supported the development of a risk transfer solution for the central emergency response Fund, helping to scale anticipatory action and demonstrated how joined up approaches across the UN system can expand, reach, and impact.
Third, we are focused on reducing fragmentation in practice.
Just yesterday, the UK jointly hosted a workshop in Rome with Opta, UNICEF and other partners to identify how innovative humanitarian financing can be better coordinated and scaled.
Alongside this initiatives such as the UN IFI Partnership facility, this reflects our focus on stronger collaboration, shared analysis, and more coherent delivery at the country level.
Ultimately, reducing fragmentation will require sustained efforts to align institutions, incentives, and financing in support of countries most in need.
Thank you, Vice President.
Thank you.
No, you have the floor.
Thank you, Vice presidents and all panelists for this event.
Norway agrees with a lot of what has already been said today, not least the importance of having parallel approaches from the humanitarian side, the development side, and from peace building in conflict and crisis settings rather than a sequence in time.
We agree with the emphasis on core and flexible funding as an enabler for our partners to be able to invest in fragile contexts, as mentioned by several of the panelists.
Flexibility for our partners means that they are able to choose the best approaches and modalities that can both address immediate needs and build resilience at the same time.
Increasing pooled and core funding is the central driver for reform and for encouraging comprehensive nexus approaches.
However, the trend has been that earmarking has increased.
We need to understand why and jointly change this path.
We need stronger incentives for quality funding, including clear evidence that core and pooled funding deliver better results across the humanitarian development piece nexus.
We must improve how we measure and report on core funding to demonstrate these results.
We need to see reduced fragmentation at country level and thank you to those panelists who have emphasized this and the need for empowered resident and humanitarian coordinators.
We need leadership and a critical mass to promote quality funding.
As mentioned, quality funding is a key driver of change and successful nexus approaches.
Within the UN 80 Reform Initiative, the work package on funding mechanisms is supposed to demonstrate why core funding and pooled funding are preferable and make them more attractive to donors.
We look forward to more information on what the outcomes of this work package will be and would appreciate any insights from the panelists.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, No.
I don't see any other requests.
Let me now go back to the panelists.
We've had a rich plethora of issues here from the key needs for common diagnostics using data to increase our connectivity.
We looked at flexible and multi year um, and structured financing, which is strategically designed, bottom up approaches using civil society and entities closest to the realities on the ground through the systems, in dialogue with governments, the resident coordinators, and the humanitarian coordinators role in pulling that together and articulating that framing.
We've talked about the sequencing and how short term crisis response and investment should pave the way for a multi year resilience development financing, looking at the SDG framing as outcomes.
We've also talked about the importance of private sector and collaborative financing and the whole set of issues that go around partnerships there.
Let me not try to go into the rich discussion here, but ask our expert panelists to give a three minute top line recap also addressing some of the issues that have been raised here.
To that end, let me start by giving the flow to Elizabeth, HG PVSO.
You have the floor.
Thank you so much, moderator and thank you to all of the member states that have intervened up until now and in the discussion.
Well, first of all, I'm very happy to hear how much alignment there is within the room amongst yourselves, but also with what we have been putting on the table as the panelists.
The importance of the humanitarian development and peace nexus of this absolutely being understood as a comprehensive approach and that in order to arrive at comprehensive solutions to very complex problems in fratile conflict affected countries, we need to really make sure that we are working in tandem across this nexus.
The sense I got from what member states were saying versus what we were also putting on the table is that we do have a very strong interest in making sure that multilaterlism delivers in these contexts and that really there's this, let's say, mutual accountability or mutual work that needs to be done on the one hand, on the side of the member states and on the other hand on the side of the system.
On the side of the system where I sit, we do, as has been mentioned by several interlocutors, we do need to show value for money.
We need to show the impact and the results.
There was a comment about needing to show the evidence of the results of core and flexible funding that Um, definitely the Secretary-General is promoting as the best way to support the system, and we need to really lean into innovative financing.
You will have heard across the panel that in different ways, each of the institutions has been talking about the investment that is being made in terms of linking certain existing instruments, in my case, such as the peace building fund of the Secretary-General and leveraging that catalystic risk tolerant and quick funding, to strengthen the relationship with the IFIs and fragile conflict affected countries and making sure that we are strategically working together across the nexus, leveraging the longer term development financing and making sure that the peace angle is very strong there and that we are helping the country to address the root causes of conflict.
But also, you heard the innovative financing approach of trying to bring in the private sector.
I think each and every panelist mentioned that I was very happy to hear support for that across the room.
Also, this is, at least in our case quite incipient.
I think there's a lot of promise there, but there also are risks inherent in that and we will have to move, I think carefully in that direction, particularly when we're talking about peace positive investments.
There was a question about UD, the UN AD number 18 workstream precisely on financing, I can mention that I'm one of the members of that group that is working together with colleagues across the system.
Indeed, it should be coming out quite soon for member states consideration, the fruit of our work.
I would say that it's principally exactly going to try to unpack the value and importance of core funding as well as pooled funding and also the role of earmarking a certain amount of earmarking, and there will be, I believe, a strong pledge or a strong request for a better balance than what we have right now.
A few interlocutors referred to that.
Quite frankly, I think we need to go back to the funding compact.
And look at it even more seriously, again, both from the system side and the member states side because, for example, pooled funding was identified as a very important mechanism in the Funding Compact through which 30% of funding going to the UN should be channeled.
Yet we're only at about 3% right now.
I'm hoping that the work in this UN AD number 18 workstream will allow us all to refocus on how to get a better funding mix, particularly as we're seeing here in fragile and conflict affected contexts and to be able to leverage the resources that do come into the UN also to these other larger sources such as the development banks and the private sector.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Elizabeth.
Let me give the floor now to Mireia, Deputy Director Diso.
You have the floor.
Thank you.
In listening to all the interventions, I think it's pretty clear that we all agree what needs to happen.
I think maybe the conversation therefore needs to shift to how we're going to make it happen.
Because we're talking of us working in different ways, adapting the business models away from the projectization.
We are talking in the UNA of a funding mix that needs to have a much bigger and central role for pool resources, even though it recognizes that it's not the only way in which we operate.
And we need different capacities and tools for that engagement with private sector financing.
There are a number of things that need to change.
I really want to very respectfully, having just been from 12 years working on the ground, that a lot of these barriers have been addressed as far as they could be at the local level.
Humanitarian and Brasil coordinators are very proactive in bringing their teams together, in generating the conversations, the transparency in the data, in engaging with the IFS or with national development banks.
But we don't feel necessarily accompanied at the central role.
Now I'm in headquarters in the Development Cooperation Office, and I look forward to being able to bring back up to this level some of these conversations and some of these solutions that have already been tested and for which we have proof of concept at the local level.
But if we don't pull the analytics, we don't pull the data, we don't pull our teams at the time of very constrained resources, the rest becomes a lot more uphill.
I just want to give an example.
When a few months back the US government made Colombia priority and a decision was made that $100 million would be channeled through the pool fund, on which I had the ultimate decision making capacity, a lot of the complementarity became possible.
Because it was in everybody's interest, other financing financiers of the humanitarian action, but also the development and the government to really understand how we were going to use the resources.
It's an example, but it goes by showing that if we're given the information, the authority, the consultation space, I think we can come up with much better outcomes for these processes.
But again, will be working and I look forward to working with the rest of you so that we can unpack some of the structural issues that today, including the donor behavior are making it more difficult for us on the ground.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mireya.
Let me now give the floor to Deputy DG Hans from Echo.
You have the floor, Hans.
Thank you.
Thank you very much also for the very rich interventions.
If there is such a close alignment between all of us on what needs to happen, then I guess the question we all need to reflect upon is why we're not seeing the change that we all agree is so much needed materialize in practice.
We need to focus more on the collaboration aspect behind all of this.
As some of you said, this is not about throwing more funding or more resources at the problem, but it is fundamentally essentially about how we work together in making use of that funding and making sure that it results in real change on the ground.
We cannot continue to apply the same solutions to all problems and somehow hope that tomorrow the result will be different.
We need to innovate, we really need to change.
We're very committed to stay engaged in fragile settings.
We're very committed to stay engaged in the multilateral principle humanitarian domain.
But it has to adapt.
It has to change and the approach has to change.
There is too much fragmentation.
There is too many partners not working together, too many actors, not working along the same strategies.
Integration at all levels is really a keyword.
We're trying to show the example by um, developing that now at European level.
Also very much overdue.
I will fully admit that, and there's also a lot that we have not done right in the past.
But we're very committed to try and do better, and we're very committed to work with everybody who thinks in the same way.
It is about innovation.
It is about doing things differently.
Anticipatory action was mentioned by Juliana and I just wanted to pick up on that.
I think it is an essential part of the solution here.
We need to think ahead of the curve rather than trying to react to problems when they materialize.
Innovative funding, blended financing, but also these debt swaps that Juliana spoke about are essential and we need to become much better at rolling them out in a more general way.
Local ownership, both for the humanitarian and resident coordinator but also for the local partners will be key.
Involvement of private sector and trying to generate a more collaborative framework for involvement of the private sector will be very important.
EU is setting very clear targets for itself on all of these issues.
We are very committed to work in this direction, and we hope that many others will join us in this.
Thank you.
Thank you, Hans.
Let me give the floor now to Juliana, principal specialist of the IDB.
Over to you.
You have the floor.
Thank you so much.
I'd like to stress three aspects that have been raised by the different countries.
One is the main purpose of this debate to reduce fragmentation, increase impact, and ways to show it, show the evidence of that impact.
In our case, in this last example that I put on the table that we are developing together with VOCA, is it worth investing on anticipatory action and from the fiscal point of view, because at the end of the day, this is about convincing ministers of finance that it actually makes sense because it's creating fiscal savings.
We need to bring to the table the arguments that are really the one that are compelling to those that take the decision.
And leveraging the efforts and bringing all these new instrument among the institutions.
We have a lot of innovation.
All the MDBs in particular are innovating and creating more and more financial mechanism that can provide more effectively financial support.
I would say that we have never been more well equipped them today to finance, in particular, a natural disaster response.
In the app, I would argue that we are failing behind and why we're falling behind.
We have more of these events, they are coming faster and they are much more destructive.
We also see cries in a scale that we haven't seen before.
In the opening remarks, we heard about this decrease on 23% of humanitarian finance.
From the MDB side, we are seeing an increase in finance, but we are falling well behind.
The challenge, sir, Great.
We need to deploy this instrument at scale and we do need to be much more efficient.
We need to be more effective in the way that we coordinate.
We need to reduce the fragmentation.
Hans had mentioned, you stress too much fragmentation among the humanitarian agents.
I would also say among the MDBs.
This example that I put on the table that is the first debt swap that we are putting together for MDBs, It has been really challenging, really challenging.
It's not easy.
It's not just among the humanitarian agencies, it's among ourselves, MDBs.
We have different process, we have different mandates, different priorities in that particular time.
Aligning that is not an easy task, but we are in a situation in a moment in time that we don't have a plan B.
We need to act and now with all this gap just getting bigger in terms of delivery, we do need to take stronger action.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Juliana and last but not least, let me give the floor to my colleague Lisa, head of Secretariat for the Giant Stan.
You have the floor.
Colleagues, we have consensus about the adequacy of vehicles that exist.
It sounds a collective demand for fewer instruments and more impact.
I think the alignment that you hear from the panel is represented by so much of the work that's going on already at the country level.
The more effectively we assemble humanitarian peace building and development financing into one coherent country portfolio, the better we can attract resources from the private sector to take us to scale.
We need to have one voice, we need to have unity of force.
We have so much to learn from the humanitarian sector and how they have key standards for the funding and the impact that they deliver The development side perhaps brings that newer innovation with our engagement with the private sector.
As we go forward together with your support, we intend to bring all the best together.
Thank you.
Thank you, Lisa, and really shout out and deep appreciation for all the panelists and their insights.
You have brought about very much practical examples, highlighting the issues as our colleagues also have spoken from the flow and really seeing at this point of time where we know the drivers, we know the complexities, we know the exponential challenges, the humanitarian action, development action, and the broader issues of peace and security are engulfed with Here, I think you have highlighted some key elements of the elements of that collaboration.
How do we pull those elements together in a more integrated joined fashion? Also, Amaya, as you said, and other colleagues spoke about, there are bottom up examples where very specific innovative approaches in different parts of the world have been practiced through a process of I think proof of concept and the data coming together.
Let's also pull some of these concepts out of the typologies that we can use to also inform and influence the policy making at the level of collaboration that needs to be tightened.
There are many, many country examples where all the actors on the ground, together with governments and civil society, the UN and others, and as you were saying, Juliana, looking at innovative financing, including with the private sector.
How can we pull some of these typologies, learn from it, and inform our policies going forward with the ultimate aim of addressing the issues of fragility, but the outcomes of efficiency, impact, and accountability.
Thank you very much.
With that, let me pass the floor on to Ambassador Hector Gomez again.
Thank you, sir, and the co chairs for sharing the session over to you.
Ellen Excellencies, distinguished participants.
If I may, as we conclude this morning's discussions, I'd like to express my appreciation to the moderator as well as all of the participants, the panelists and colleagues who contributed to this panel.
Which is an absolute top priority for Spain.
Thank you, all of you for the timely and so essential discussions.
I'd just like to highlight a key takeaway, the growing pressure that countries and communities affected by conflict displacement and repeated shots face, particularly in the context of increasingly constrained financing and rising operational demands.
The current contraction in official development assistance and humanitarian financing is having significant implications for crisis affected contexts, including Haiti, South Sudan, and the Sahel, where needs continue to deepen while resources remain under strain.
We must continue working across the system to reduce fragmentation and support more coherent and complementary engagement across financing systems.
On the part of the whole of the international system, but the UN in particular, and this in line with the spirit of UN 80.
In the immediate future, we must strengthen complementarity between pooled funds managed by the UN and other financing mechanisms.
The UN development system and the membership must play their role and work in order to maximize efficiency to reduce the fragmentation of pooled funds and this in line with UN 80, which is an absolute imperative and also to work on joint funds like the joint fund for the SDGs, the PBF and the SAF.
I call upon all members to join this effort, and I wish to underscore once again the importance of timely, sustained commitment by development actors and financial institutions, particularly in crisis affected settings where prolonged instability and repeated shocks continue to undermine resilience and development progress.
It's evident that crises cannot be addressed by humanitarian actors alone.
We urge development actors and international financial institutions to engage earlier and invest more proactively and sustainably to help reduce vulnerability, strengthen resilience, and support basic service delivery in fragile settings.
We need countries to be at the center of their own future and responses that are adapted and tailored to contexts with a more coherent engagement between development and peace building.
Excellencies, no actor alone can face these challenges alone.
More solid alliances and sustained commitment in the whole international system will remain essential in order to support the affected countries and communities, those affected by crises and instability.
I would be remiss to conclude this without thanking once again our panelists and our moderator for their participation and for the knowledge shared.
Thank you very much to all of you for your participation and commitment.
We have come to an end of our program and the council will continue its meeting on the transition from relief to development this afternoon at 3:00 P.M.
In this chamber.
I would like to remind delegations that the schedule of side events taking place on the margins of the Humanitarian Affairs segment and the transition meeting is available on the OCHA Humanitarian Affairs segment website.
The meeting is adjourned.
None.