2026 ECOSOC Humanitarian Affairs Segment - Economic and Social Council, 28th Plenary Meeting

Excellencies, Distinguished delegates, very good morning.
Please take your seats.
Excellencies, Distinguished delegates.
I declare open the Humanitarian Affairs segment of the Economic and Social Council at its 2026 session and call to order its 28th meeting.
I now invite the council to begin its consideration of Agenda item nine entitled Special Economic Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Assistance.
Excellency's distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, It is my honor to welcome you to the 2026 Humanitarian Affairs segment of EcoSc.
We meet at a moment of profound humanitarian challenge across the world.
Armed conflict, displacement, food insecurity and climate related shots continue to intensify humanitarian suffering and deepen vulnerability for affected populations.
At the same time, the humanitarian system is being asked to respond to crises that are simultaneously larger, more complex, and increasingly protracted.
At the same time, the resources available to humanitarian organizations are contracting sharply.
The Secretary-General reports presented to this segment describe a humanitarian system operating under immense strain.
Humanitarian organizations are increasingly forced to make difficult operational choices in order to focus limited resources on the most severe and life threatening conditions.
Rather the humanitarian community has therefore adopted an increasingly hyper prioritized approach focused on preserving lifesaving assistance.
At the center of these crises are civilians.
Across multiple conflicts, civilians continue to bear the brunt of hostilities.
Hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure continue to be damaged and destroyed.
Humanitarian workers and medical personnel continue to face unacceptable levels of violence.
The Secretary-General report on the protection of civilians also reminds us that increasing disregard for international humanitarian law is itself becoming a major driver of humanitarian suffering.
Respect for international humanitarian law is not optional nor can it be subject to conditions.
And access for humanitarian personnel and protection for them is fundamental.
This segment will be focused on three closely related priorities.
First of all, the humanitarian resets and the efforts that are being engaged in across the humanitarian system to adapt to today's operational and financial realities.
Second, the urgent need to strengthen protection of civilians and reaffirm respect for international humanitarian law.
And third, the humanitarian financing crisis and the collective responsibility to sustain lifesaving assistance for the most vulnerable.
The humanitarian system is already adapting.
Through the humanitarian resets and UNA, humanitarian organizations are working to simplify coordination structures, reduce duplication, strengthen accountability, and improve operational efficiency.
There is also increasing recognition of the importance of country level leadership, stronger coordination and meaningful partnership with national and local actors.
These reforms are practical responses to immense operational pressure.
However, at the same time, adaptation alone cannot replace political responsibility.
Member states are responsible for ensuring respect for international humanitarian law.
Respecting and facilitating humanitarian access and supporting principled humanitarian action.
Today's discussions therefore come at an important moment and the segment provides an opportunity to exchange practical experiences and reaffirm our shared commitments.
We do not gather today under the illusion that these challenges can be resolved easily, but we do gather with the conviction that cooperation, principled action, and sustained engagement remain essential.
It's my honor now to play a video message from the Secretary-General.
Excellency's, distinguished partners.
Across the globe, humanitarian needs are at an all time high, driven by spiraling conflict, food insecurity, and increasingly climate change.
More than 135 million people now require urgent assistance.
At the same time, international law is being flagrantly violated with civilians targeted, schools and hospitals attacked and humanitarian workers killed.
The decimation of its budgets is forcing impossible trade offs.
2024-2025, global humanitarian funding collapsed by 40%.
Yet the United Nations continues to deliver.
We are on the ground, providing lifesaving assistance to communities and negotiating safe passage for humanitarian workers and goods.
Above all, we are laser focused on renewing the humanitarian system.
Through UN 80, we have launched the new Humanitarian compact that drive for innovation and impact.
This includes streamlining humanitarian planning, integrating supply chains to reduce duplication, collaborating on data and diplomacy, and aligning roles and responsibilities across UN agencies.
But remaining humanitarian aid is not something the United Nations can do alone.
It requires political courage from member states.
I urge you all to bring that courage to your discussions today.
Together, we must reaffirm the primacy of international humanitarian law and build a system that delivers for the most vulnerable, no matter the crisis, no matter the need.
Thank you.
Do I thank the UN Secretary-General and I now invite the Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mr.
Tom Fletcher, to make a statement.
Well, thank you, Ambassador and Excellency's colleagues, friends and partners.
For over a year, you've heard me saying that the humanitarian system is overstretched, underfunded, and under attack.
Today, the challenge that we face collectively goes further.
The question is no longer how we respond.
It is whether we can respond at the scale and speed that people need.
Our question to you today is this is help coming? Because the world around us is shifting fast, technology reshaping conflict, politics fragmenting, rules are ignored, protections are eroding, and the humanitarian mission itself is being contested.
We are operating in environments which are more complex, more constrained, and more dangerous than ever before.
The past three years have been the deadliest on record for humanitarian workers, over 1,000 of our colleagues killed and we renew our sense of commitment to this humanitarian mission in their memory and in their honor.
These are not trends, they are lives.
The child who goes without a meal, the patient who cannot reach a clinic, the family forced once again to flee.
On my visits to the front lines over the past year, I've met those people again and again and they ask me, I help coming? This year, we aim to reach 87 million people with lifesaving support.
Not because the needs have fallen, 252 million people still require aid, but because resources have plummeted.
That leaves us with the hardest decision that humanitarians face, who we can reach and who we cannot reach.
The gap though is no longer just between needs and funding.
It is between needs and our ability, our willingness to act.
Those who pay the price are those already closest to the edge, families making impossible choices, children going hungry, clinics closing, water running dry, women and girls exposed to violence, exploitation and abuse.
So we ask again, is help coming? Because we cannot accept this as the new normal, not for the people who we serve, not under the humanitarian imperative and not for our collective conscience.
This is not only a test for our humanitarian system, it is a test for all of us that is why we begin this humanitarian affairs segment with the humanitarian reset.
Because the world has changed and we must change with it.
Over the past year, we've prioritized harder, cut bureaucracy and duplication and push decision making much closer to people we serve.
Reform is not retreat.
The choices we make reflect constraints, not diminished need.
The principle of humanity remains unchanged.
We must help people wherever they are.
The humanitarian reset is about defending that principle under unprecedented sustained pressure.
Our second discussion as part of the humanitarian affairs segment focuses on international humanitarian law because there is no humanitarian action without it.
Access, principles, protection of aid workers.
These are not abstractions.
They determine whether we can reach people at all, and there is no delivering without defending.
We will defend firmly the values at the heart of humanitarian action, impartiality, neutrality, independence.
Our third discussion in our conversations over the next few days is, of course, about funding.
Without resources, there is no response at scale.
We've received now $9.3 billion updated this morning of the $23 billion required to save 87 million lives.
This is, of course, less than 1% of global defense spending right now.
But humanity is not measured in dollars and pledges and commitments.
We pay tribute also to the countries and communities often carrying the heaviest burdens themselves who continue to open their doors and provide safety and refuge to people forced to flee.
We know that the resources exist.
The question is how we choose to use them.
Because budgets are not numbers, they are choices and the future of humanitarian action will not be decided by humanitarians alone.
Parties to conflict must uphold international law.
States must protect humanitarian space.
Donors, development partners, the private sector must invest in resilience.
In a fragmented world, humanitarian action remains proof that collective action is still possible.
So far we have already reached nearly 23 million people with lifesaving support, even facing the unprecedented pressures that we do.
I can reassure you and commit to you that we can and we will reach many, many more.
This conversation this week during the humanitarian affairs segment is where we decide whether we will do so.
Because saving lives, reducing suffering, protecting dignity is not optional.
It is our shared responsibility, our shared humanity.
And so I leave you with that question.
Is help coming? Thank you.
I thank the Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator for his statement, and I'm now going to briefly pause the meeting to allow the podium to be rearranged.
The high level panel one will begin momentarily, so please remain seated.
In Coles.
Excellencies, colleagues, we're going to begin our first panel discussion entitled from Strengthening Humanitarian Coordination and the Delivery and Impact of Humanitarian Assistance.
Yes.
As we know, the humanitarian situation is operating in an increasingly difficult environment, intensity of suffering continues to grow while resources are contracting.
Humanitarian organizations are therefore being compelled to adapt their structures, operations, and methods of delivery.
The Secretary-General report describes a humanitarian system increasingly focused on hyper prioritization, efficiency, coordination and country level leadership, the humanitarian reset and UNA of practical responses to these realities.
Despite growing challenges, humanitarians continue to deliver against the mandate set out.
35 years ago in resolution 46 182, to be more effective, humanitarian organizations are seeking to simplify structures, reduce duplications, strengthen accountability, and devolve decision making.
At the same time, these reforms must remain fully anchored in humanitarian principles and focused on delivering effective assistance to people facing the most severe humanitarian conditions.
Today's discussion is therefore not about theoretical reform.
It is about how humanitarian organizations are adapting in practice under severe operational and financial pressure.
It's also about how humanitarian principles are concrete enablers of life saving operations in practice and not just abstract theory.
Several humanitarian actors are already implementing important reforms and the goal is to save lives.
There are initiatives to streamline planning processes, strengthen country level leadership, improve cooperation across agencies, and increase reliance on national and local actors.
Member States and humanitarian partners have emphasized the importance of ensuring that these reforms remain inclusive, balanced, and focused on humanitarian impact.
The discussion is also expected to reflect differing perspectives regarding implementation, financial pressures, and the operational implications of humanitarian reform.
It's my pleasure to welcome our distinguished speakers, our panelists this morning.
We shall hear your presentations, and I would like to turn first to His Excellency Sergio France Danes, permanent representative of Brazil to the United Nations.
How can the international community ensure that humanitarian reform remains inclusive, balanced, and responsive to the needs and priorities of affected countries.
Your Excellency, you have the floor.
Thank you very much.
Hector Gomez, permanent Representative of Spain and Vice President of the 2026 EcoSoC Humanitarian Affairs Segment, fellow panelists, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen.
I thank Ambassador Gomez for inviting me as a panelist to discuss such a pressing topic.
The need to strengthen humanitarian coordination and impact of humanitarian assistance amid shrinking resources and growing politicization of humanitarian aid.
The current context has placed unprecedented strain on humanitarian organizations, but it has also opened an important opportunity to deepen the discussion on how to reduce bureaucracy, improve coordination, and build a more focused, simplified, and effective humanitarian system.
Both the humanitarian reset and the humanitarian compact of the UN 80 move in the right direction by simplifying procedures, clarifying roles across UN agencies, harnessing synergies, and supporting focused and context driven responses.
Brazil welcomes and supports internal measures to respond more effectively and preserve as much operational capacity as possible.
However, efficiency is a means, not an end in itself.
Reform must be fundamentally about impact.
As Brazil has been emphasizing during UNA consultations, humanitarian responses should not be defined solely by technical considerations or other consultations limited to a small group of countries.
Needs on the ground and efficiency in responding to humanitarian urgencies must remain the primary guides of our collective efforts.
Another key feature of the reform agenda is localization, including the transfer of greater responsibility and funding to national governments, local NGOs, community organizations, and local responders.
This is crucial to ensure national ownership of humanitarian and development responses with meaningful participation in locally adapted solutions.
But we must avoid the unintended consequence of overburdening local actors or shifting disproportionate responsibility onto host countries, many of which are already carrying a large share of the response burden.
Localization and resource rationalization cannot become a substitute for international solidarity.
They must be accompanied by predictable support, adequate funding, and sustained institutional capacity building.
While we do believe there is room for improvement, it is clear that no reform can succeed without fully defending international humanitarian law and the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence, which are rightly among the priorities of the humanitarian reset.
Indeed, blatant disregard for IHL and attacks against humanitarian and UN personnel, including campaigns fed by disinformation and hate speech, have put humanitarian work to ever more severe tests, not only in its operational capacity, but also in its international legitimacy.
Nowhere has this become more evident than in Gaza, where a humanitarian catastrophe continues to unfold before our eyes while Unwa, a UN agency, mandated by a General Assembly resolution and clearly protected under international law, continues to face illegal and unjustified attacks against its staff and objects, as well as constraints on its lifesaving operations.
This makes clear that the humanitarian crisis is at large, a dramatic manifestation of the failure of the multilateral peace and security architecture.
This is one of the reasons why Brazil, China, France, Jordan, Kazakhstan, and South Africa, together with the International Committee of the Red Cross, launched in 2024 the global initiative to galvanize political commitment for international humanitarian law.
As we approach the initiative's high level conference to defend humanity in war to be held in Jordan next December, We kindly invite all states to join the global initiative and help reverse current trends.
We can only make humanitarian reforms when humanitarian principles and legal norms are fully observed.
The initiative has already 113 countries that joined.
A stronger humanitarian system requires not only better coordination, but also stronger political commitment, respect for international law, predictable financing, and genuine solidarity with affected populations and host countries.
Thank you.
I thank the permanent representative of Brazil to the United Nations and I'd now like to turn to Mr.
Amani Eve Uber, Executive Director of Association Tin Tua.
Now, my question from the perspective of a national organization, what difference does devolving decision making and resources closer to communities make in practice? Mr.
Uber, you have the floor.
Merci.
Thank you very much.
Excellency, Ambassador Gometh, Vice President of EcoSc for the Humanitarian Affairs segment.
Distinguished panelists, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm honored and privileged to be here on this panel.
To share with you some experience from the ground, from communities, from national organizations who work day in day out so that assistants can cover the last mile.
From the point of view of a national organization, the transfer of decision making power and resources to bring them closer to communities does in no way mean a reduction in requirements or a downward shift in expectations.
Quite the contrary, organizations such as our own have undertaken considerable efforts to align themselves with international standards that are very strict in terms of quality of management and financial transparency.
We've been certified by the core humanitarian standard, and we successfully passed through the particularly rigorous audit process from US aid.
These certificates show irrefutably that there are local level management systems and skills in this connection.
The reduction of humanitarian funding has shown starkly the destabilizing impact that these decisions can have on the entire global humanitarian system.
That's why today we welcome the return of the United States and the United States and the work of the coordinator to ensure that financing is managed more effectively and works more closely with local actors.
It's crucial to clarify also that working more in the ground does not mean just looking inward and nor does it mean excluding international partners.
We're not asking for a replacement here.
The current model where international teams periodically are deployed to replace local capacity has shown its structural limits in terms of durability, relevance, and cost.
What we advocate for is real strategic complementarity.
We shouldn't be in competition with each other, but we should be entering into a win win cooperation.
Roll out this vision, financial architecture needs to be rethought and pragmatically so.
For some financing windows, resources must be directed towards leading local organizations, and then international players provide specific technical support.
For more complex financing, international actors can take the lead as long as they include international organizations.
This allows them to capitalize on our unique field experience and to guarantee continuity for humanitarian action.
International actors should not come to do things for us, but they should drive and catalyze capacity.
Targeted technical mentorship is also crucial to help us in navigating this and accessing financing mechanisms because often they are extremely complex from an administrative point of view.
In all conferences everywhere, we hear the same thing as local as possible, as international as necessary.
We completely agree with this.
But beyond these words, beyond these statements, what concrete mechanism exists then to make this principle a reality? Unfortunately, there is no mechanism.
Today, this system works actually the other way round.
It's up to local organizations to fight, to show vast quantities of evidence and to go through endless audits to justify that they are capable of receiving funding.
I propose that we reverse the burden of proof.
If we want to be honest with ourselves and our own commitments, it is high time to demand that the UN agencies and international NGOs and also donors that they formally justify every time that a funding decision is not a local one.
If there is local capacity, then the international option should be an exception and not just the automatic reflex.
Without a binding mechanism for accountability on the principle of apply or explain, then this will just remain on paper.
This decentralization really must prioritize local actors and therefore work on governance and humanitarian coordination.
Priorities can no longer simply be made and decided upon in western capitals and international headquarters.
They need to come from the ground.
Multi sectoral evaluations, needs assessments should be drafted together with active involvement of local actors and prioritization processes should scrupulously reflect the realities that they exist in.
The IASC recommends that co leadership clusters be systematically given to national actors so that they can do this depending on the context of guarantee.
Horizontal coordination that is fair and that is context based.
National NGOs are not simple intermediaries or indeed spokespeople for the people.
We are the communities themselves.
We live alongside them, we share the same risks and the same realities every single day.
This is why our first reporting and we are primarily accountable to them.
Of course, we remain accountable towards our financial backers, of course, but we would just urgently recall that humanitarian action is not a question of charity but of law.
In the field in Burkina Faso, reality is striking.
Affected communities, particularly women suffer from inaction.
They are tired from not having been able to do anything.
They give and I share a quote from them today, they say, thank you for the food.
Thank you for the protection mechanisms that you have deployed.
But please help us to find some economic activity.
This message is not a request for further assistance, it's a demand for dignity.
Distributing food rations, of course, saves lives in the short term, but providing tools to build and rebuild means of subsistence and livelihoods, this is honoring this right and dignity and empowering a mother or a family.
Directly financing local actors, it gives us the way of hearing their voices and responding to what they have to say.
Affected communities in the field really hope that this process will not be once again a simple reform that does not go further.
We national actors share this hope fully.
And we have the right to be demanding because we have been involved throughout the ERC process and we have really provided a material, intellectual, and human contribution to it.
Today, we are not simply at the stage of discussion and pilot rollouts.
We have all the elements, all the skills, and all the legitimacy needed to succeed.
It is therefore high time to move from words to action, to guarantee dignified humanitarian assistance.
Thank you very much.
Do I thank the Executive Director of Association Tinta.
I'd now like to give the floor to Mr.
Edri Rata, acting Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy emergency relief coordinator at the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
My question to you is, what can you tell us about the status of the humanitarian reset and how will it improve outcomes for the people we serve? Sir, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Ambassador Gomezz and Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen.
As the previous speakers and the ERC has alluded and framed this morning, Around the world, we look at the crisis today, being hit from every direction, wars that last longer, hunger that cuts deeper, climate shock that strike harder and even more complex crises as we look around the world.
New technologies are transforming the nature of conflict and humanitarian system that is asked to do more with less resources at its disposal.
The numbers tell the story.
239 million people in humanitarian need humanitarian assistance.
65 wars and conflicts, the highest number since World War two.
More than 117 million people have been forced to flee their homes, including some 68 million internally displaced within their own countries.
At the same time, humanitarian funding has fallen sharply from 37 billion in 2024 to 26 billion in 2025.
In some critical large humanitarian theaters, we've seen that drop 30, 35, 40%.
This year, we are focusing on the efforts of reaching 87 million people, as you heard from the ERC, facing the most severe needs.
Not because other needs have disappeared, but because resources have, a critical prioritization had been undertaken.
These realities are forcing the humanitarian sector to rethink the way we work and we must become faster, leaner, more focused, and more accountable.
As the ambassador from Brazil also mentioned and our colleague just a while ago, more accountable and locally led to be operationally effective.
This, in a sense, is the purpose of the humanitarian reset.
It's about cutting down processes, cutting the bureaucracy, simplifying the coordination, reducing duplication, and strengthening accountability to the people we serve, to the resources we receive, and moving power and decision making closer to the people we serve.
It's about taking the core principles of the General Assembly Resolution 40 6182 on coordination, leadership and accountability and making sure that they work for the world and the realities and the complexities we face today.
It is firmly anchored in humanitarian principles and international humanitarian law.
Across the system, we already are seeing this shift.
From Nigeria to Colombia, from Afghanistan to Sudan, we are supporting resident and humanitarian coordinators to adapt to this coordination and strength.
Strengthen localization.
Let me just take two or three points from our previous experience in Afghanistan where we actually had the reset in action.
We looked at very difficult choices on prioritization, looking at the critical needs which are lifesaving and civility based, not easy when you have such a spectrum of needs in a country like Afghanistan.
How do you draw that line? Using the evidence, looking at the impact and the shock, very tough choices are made to, as we say, hyper prioritize the need.
We had prioritize needs, We re prioritize the priorities, we deprioritize the priorities to come with the most critical lifesaving action.
These are difficult choices made with partners, talking to communities, looking at data.
We looked at the structures, streamlined them, cutting down the processes, and close interface, as colleagues are saying, between humanitarian action and resilience and development action.
This is essential.
As colleagues said, humanitarian aid and action is a bandit, but you need to have moved from fragility, which is addressing critical lifesaving needs to stability, which requires a seamless, if I may say so.
Phase in interface with development and resilience action.
The humanitarian country teams are sharpening their focus on lifesaving action, and this requires to be a journey walked through and supported all the way down.
Affected communities are helping to make the humanitarian services more accessible, more inclusive, and better adapted to people's needs and that remains essential dialogue, as colleagues said, bottom up in terms of the needs, but also the efficiencies.
Pool funds are putting some of the resources directly into the hands of local organizations and in Afghanistan, I'm happy to say two, women led organizations where we have challenges and immense rights challenges for Afghan women and girls.
Two, NGOs, women led organizations directly impacting the work of Afghan girls and women.
National and local groups are increasingly co leading the response and localization should no longer be an aspiration, but increasingly operational reality with proper empowerment of actors delivering.
But even as we change how we work, we must hold firm to our principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence.
These are not slogans.
They are what allow humanitarians to operate across conflict lines, build trust, and help hard to reach communities.
Our credibility also depends on delivering operational effectiveness, accountability, and results, as was mentioned already.
That is what the reset is about.
Not new structures or processes, but be clear about the choices, sharper priorities, simpler coordination, less bureaucracy, and stronger local leadership, and greater operational focus.
This is not about accepting that fewer people receive help.
It's about fighting to protect lifesaving humanitarian action in a world where the pressure on our work has never been greater.
And member states have a critical role to play here, protecting humanitarian space, providing flexible and predictable funding, and upholding international humanitarian law.
Because even the strongest humanitarian system cannot succeed if civilians continue to be attacked, aid is blocked, access denied, and resources diminished.
This is a collective effort, Excellencies.
It depends on partnership between member states, humanitarian organizations, local organizations, and the communities we serve.
At a time of growing division, effective and principled humanitarian action remains one of the clearest expressions of our shared humanity.
Thank you.
I thank the ASG for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief coordinator.
I'd now like to give the floor to miss Rana Dagash Camara, Assistant Executive Director of Partnerships and Innovation at the World Food Program, who is joining us virtually.
My question to you is, could you share some examples of how humanitarian organizations are already working differently under the humanitarian resets and UN 80? Miss Dagash Cara, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Excellency.
Can you hear me? Perfect.
Fantastic.
Well, thank you very much, Excellency, for your opening remarks, the ERCs Enriquez and all colleagues actually who framed the context extremely well.
One year on, I think the direction is clear.
The system is moving from fragmentation towards a much more unified, service oriented and locally anchored humanitarian model.
One year on from this reset and the UN 80, we are seeing a clear shift from ambition to implementation, and we are pushing the systems to deliver efficiently.
I will reflect on four progress tracks today.
The first progress track that we are witnessing is that we are working more closely together than I recall in the past decades.
With the leadership of the ERC and our respective principals and truly across all levels, we consult more, we coordinate more, and we table issues a lot more openly.
I can attest that my counterparts and I are in touch almost daily, both for work, coordination, but also for counseling support because it has not been an easy time for everyone.
By way of example, actually, in this, a few weeks ago, We were coordinating a mission to Bangladesh with our top ten donors partners.
We could have gone alone with WFP, but given the moment, given the needs, given the collective pain and pressure and what we are trying to resolve together, we extended the invite to our sister agencies, our key operational partners, to both UNHCR and UNICEF to come with us.
And in that process, the resident coordinator played a central role in everything that we did in the discussions and the recommendations.
So that to me is the first sign of progress truly in this year.
The second one is we have seen visible progress where we have scaled up common services, moving away from fragmented agency by agency approaches towards operational platforms that are shared.
That's reducing duplication, lowering administrative costs, and improving service delivery.
The UN System Service Hub is now a single entry point for agencies to access shared services.
On our fleet, on our travel, on our mobility, on engineering, on assets and management, and it's generated about 18 million in efficiency gains and served about 2.5 million customers.
Now, at the same time, Interagency service consolidation is advancing through scalable platforms.
UN fleet is WP and UNHCR providing cost effective vehicle leasing across the UN system.
It's generated more than 1.6 million in annual savings for 100 countries.
We're expanding our global shared services and consolidating additional service lines and onboarding more service providers.
I will now come to the jewel on the crown, Excellency, which is the integrated supply chain approach, which focused on three pillars, global procurement of relief items, global logistics, and harmonized in country logistics.
This is significant because 70% of humanitarian expenditure is supply chain related, making it one of the most direct levers for efficiency, speed, and value for money.
So we're implementing and advancing in the five starter context Afghanistan, Haiti, Palestine, Somalia, Sudan, priority contexts where the need for efficiency is most urgent.
And we are on track to finalize the launch of the operating model this August.
By end of year, we will have lessons that we will review and from there evaluate our readiness to scale additionally.
But I will also say, Excellency, that even though we haven't launched the five countries, we are seeing a different way of working in supply chain even today.
The Middle East context is one.
When the crisis happened, WFP and UNICEF negotiated with the shipping lines to remove the emergency surcharges for all humanitarian cargo.
We saved $2 million in that negotiation.
We're working a lot better together in the Ebola response today, where agencies have more rapidly shared PPE specifications, built common tools like dashboards and engage seamlessly with the Africa CDC and Monusco.
We understand each other better, and we are relying on that for pushing more efficiencies.
We've we've done well in previous pandemics, but this is a slightly different level, I would argue, demonstrating the tangible value of one system.
I'll speak to the third progress that we are seeing as part of the humanitarian reset, and that's WP manages logistics and emergency telecom clusters.
We combine those into a single logistics and telecommunications cluster.
We strengthen the backbone of humanitarian response.
We enable faster, better coordinated delivery real time.
Building on 20 years of this mandated service provision, this links with the UN AT supply chain initiative to drive more agility, coordinated, effective chains day to day.
Data and technology will be the before last point in time because there's a very strong emphasis on interoperability and shared standards and decision ready data.
We're seeing a shift from parallel systems towards coordinated systems.
We're seeing a broader shift towards organizing comparative advantages of how we play together, and we need to continue in this vein and we are working to reduce duplicating capacities.
Finally, the fourth and most critical element of The last year has been localization.
This is the backbone of most humanitarian operations and a critical dimension for any response.
Now, there Shared service models are not only about efficiency at global level, it's empowering national and local actors.
It's leveraging local markets excellency, it's strengthening national supply chains and enabling local partners to act as a first responder.
We're increasingly focusing on building local capacity so that these supply chains are not only delivering assistance, but leaving a stronger, more resilient system at community level.
And that priority to scale that work and moving it from pilot initiatives to a system wide implementation is our priority.
To do all of this, and as the ERC and everyone noted, we need a few basics to continue reaching the most vulnerable.
We need to ensure more predictable and sustainable financing for shared services and these solutions and to meet the critical needs, we must align on the shared funding models.
All funds help identify priorities.
We welcome them.
They have been a game changer.
But flexible bilateral resources enable rapid response.
In Lebanon, we could respond in 24 hours because of the flexible bilateral response that had this prepositioned food.
Preposition staff, reposition our infrastructure.
It is important to sustain this collective approach in any humanitarian response.
Member states who have a critical role to play by supporting investments in the system wide approach, have to incentivize this shared approach and enable reforms that prioritize efficiency and localization and collective outcomes.
Finally, one year on, as I stated, the direction is clear.
The system is moving from fragmentation to more unified service oriented and locally anchored model.
To continue doing this, we will require continued commitment, resources, partnerships, and a very strong focus on delivery.
I thank you.
I thank Executive Executive Director of Partnerships and Innovation at the World Food Program.
I now give the floor to Mr.
Aguayoa, Deputy Special Representative for Minusk, resident coordinator and humanitarian coordinator for the Central African Republic, who is joining us virtually.
From your perspective at country level, what does the humanitarian reset look like in practice? You have the floor, sir.
Thank you very much, Excellency, distinguished delegates.
It is honor to provide humanitarian resets, is reshaping humanitarian action on the ground here in the Southal African Republic and helping us better assist people in need through stronger localization, closer engagement with affected communities, and more effective coordination.
Here in Southal African Republic, this shift is already translating into concrete operational changes.
Over the past year, we have brought decision making closer to the people we serve through the operationalization of area based coordination, analysis, planning, and response are increasingly decentralized to the field level.
This strengthened timely multi sectoral responses.
It reduced fragmentation and ensured that priorities are grounded in local realities and community feedback while maintaining impartiality, neutrality, and independence.
We have streamlined coordination structures to improve efficiency and impacts.
Field level coordination has been consolidated into inclusive platforms while reducing our operational footprint here in Bangi to reinforce our presence in the deep field.
As part of the resets, we have implemented an integrated model in three priority location.
In the Southeast, Pangasu in the center, and Bocaraga where humanitarian development and peace actors work together through a single platform to deliver more coherent and sustainable responses.
At the strategic level, coordination has been strengthened through better alignment of national and regional mechanisms.
Our engagement and national actors has been central to this transformation.
Systemic consultation with affected populations are now embedded in the response, ensuring their needs informed, prioritization, but also program design.
Area based allocations under the OCHA Management that Fund reinforce this by linking decisions to locally identify priority, ensuring assistance remain relevant, but also accountable.
These shifts are not just structural, they are already being felt by the people we serve.
As shared recently by a woman we met in Zeno in the southeast of the country, I could.
Humanitarian organizations have long supported our communities.
The consultations have strengthened the dialogue between our community and our humanitarian partners.
What has changed is that our priorities are now discussed regularly, and this has helped ensure that assistance is better adapted to the realities we face every day.
And goods.
We are the strengths of local actors who are often the first and most consistent responders.
So the progress on localization here in South African Republic is evidence.
Direct funding to national NGOs to the Humanitarian Fund has increased significantly in 2021 to 30% in 2025.
Local organizations, along with community leaders are increasingly into decision making processes that reflect meaningful partnership.
The South African national NGO called POC found at goods.
The humanitarian reset has strengthened our role by shifting more resources to local actors closer to communities.
Strengthening our capacities remains essential to maximize our impacts on goods.
The Ministry of Internal Action and its field representative are now playing a more active role than ever and co leading coordination efforts, thereby strengthening national ownership.
Despite these advances, challenges do remain.
Localizations continue to face structural and financial constraints, including limited direct funding for local NGOs and persistent capacity gaps.
Delays in fundings, increase operational costs and reduce our ability to reach those most in need.
Donors therefore play a critical role in enabling a more effective and agile response.
Humanian access also remains a major concern insecurity, weak infrastructure, and the six month rainy season makes some extremely difficult areas reachable.
Fragile and costly supply chains, combined with the country's landlocked contexts and fuel prices volatility, continue to strain operations, making logistics a critical lifeline.
Local organizations play a vital role in maintaining access using their proximity and acceptance with communities to overcome these constraints.
However, without timely positioning of supplies, communities, particularly in border areas with South Sudan and Sudan remain at risk of being cut off from lifesaving assistance.
In my capacity as humanitary coordinator, exercising an integrated triple heart role, I continue to enhance the overall efficiency and coherence of United Nations engagement on the ground.
By bridging humanitarian development and peace efforts, we facilitate more integrated responses.
This includes leveraging peacekeeping assets to enable humanitarian access and strengthening security conditions, extending our reach into high risk areas while reducing duplications.
At the same time, scaling up multipurpose cash assistance present an important opportunity to improve efficiency and dignity, while strengthening links with national social protection systems and supporting long term resilience.
So looking ahead, limit resets must be supported by concrete actions from member states.
First, predictable, timely and flexible funding is essential to sustain life saving operations and enable anticipatory actions, including repositioning with increased direct and flexible funding to national actors.
Second, localization must become a measurable form of accountability, ensuring meaningful participation of local actors in decision making, not only access to funding.
Third, coordination must continue to be simplified and brought closer to the field so that decisions reflect real needs and evolving contexts.
Finally, stronger collaboration between humanitarian development and peace actors is essential to ensure that immediate assistance also contribute to longer term solutions.
Excellency, distinguished delegates, the humanitarian set is not an abstract concept.
In the South African Republic, it is already re shaping how it operates, bringing us closer to communities, strengthening partnerships, and improving collective impacts.
To deliver results at scale, we need sustained political support, stronger partnerships, and adequate resources to ensure that the most vulnerable people are indeed not left behind.
I thank you.
I thank the Deputy Special Representative for the United Nations multidimensional Integrator Stabilization mission in the Central African Republic, resident coordinator and humanitarian coordinator for the Central African Republic.
Thank you.
I would now like to turn to miss Martha Valdes Garcia, Humanitarian Director at Oxfam International.
My question to you is, how is Oxfam approaching localization and partnership differently today? Have the floor.
Thank you.
Amador, excellencies and distinguished colleagues, thank you very much for the invitation and for being part of this important conversation.
As it has been already presented, we are operating in a context of growing challenges and difficulties.
In this environment, humanitarian reform cannot only be about technical fixes and efficiency.
It must also address questions of power, legitimacy, and accountability.
At Oxfam, we work alongside communities affected by crisis around the world.
We aim not only to deliver high quality responses ourselves, but also to advocate for a system that delivers the best possible support to those who need it most.
Our experience and growing evidence shows that working with local actors leads to better, more relevant, and more sustainable outcomes.
What has been changing in Oxfam approach to localization? The current reform efforts haven't fundamentally changed our direction of travel, but they have accelerated our reflection and where we truly add value.
And how we contribute to better quality responses.
In this sense, I would like to share four key areas on which we have been making advances.
The first one is working with partners by default.
We know that more than 80% of the population that is in need of humanitarian assistance is located in highly protracted crisis.
This is why working with local actors and strengthening local systems is the way to go in order not to undermine what is available for those populations.
This is why in Oxford, we work with local civil society organizations and we work with local authorities because they are there before, during, and after international actors leave.
We also work and support networks of local actors to strengthen collaboration and coordination.
This is the case of Kenya where we work and support the ASL network that is a network of local actors that are managing funds, making decisions, and in the case of Oxfam, we are on strengthening the governance structure instead of leading.
We prioritize as well partnership with organizations that represent less powerful groups such as woman rights or refugee led organizations.
We have an initiative that is called the Woman Rights Fund that is aiming at providing flexible multi support that support those organizations grow and strengthen their voice.
We do that in context like Ukraine.
Just wanted to share that our partners are not just implementers.
They are part of the design of the responses, they are part of the decision making and we make the decisions based on complementarity.
This is the case, for example, in South Sudan where we design our responses with the local actors.
The second key point is about shifting quality funding and power.
Let's be clear, localization is not only about who delivers, it is about who decides and who controls resources.
We need to be honest about the discord between the interest and the reality in terms of localization and the competition that exists in the international humanitarian system.
While we have all committed to share 25% of the resources with local actors and we committed a decade ago in the grand bargain, in reality, last year, only 94.5% of resources were shared directly or indirectly with local actors.
In addition, this funding is not the best quality one.
This is why in Oxfam, what we do in terms of funding is, first of all, advocate for local actors to get access to direct funding as a priority.
Secondly, we share a significant part of our resources with local actors.
Last year, it was 21% of our humanitarian funding and it's very different in different countries.
For example, in the case of Colombia, we share up to 80% of the resources.
The last point, and this is quite important and related to things that have been mentioned today is the fact that we need to improve as well, the funding and the funding purposes.
And we are working in Oxform to share overheads with the local actors, quite importantly as well to support them in relation to duty of care, recognizing the threats and the risks that local humanitarian actors are facing that are higher than the international actors.
The third point is about complementarity and value add, that is the key.
We are constantly asking us about the question, what do we add as a critical value, where we need to be focusing? The answer is different in different contexts.
In some contexts, we will provide just technical support and in other contexts, we will be working in direct implementation, but always in coordination and collaboration with local actors.
In Oxfam, we believe it is important to transfer and share the knowledge and the experience that we have built after decades of working in different humanitarian crises.
The last point in relation to the localization agenda is related to the internal changes.
Because we are doing internal changes.
Everything that I have shared comes with transformation internally, transformation of our systems, our policies, our practices, and quite importantly, our culture.
This takes time.
It requires unlearning deeply ingrained hierarchical ways of working.
It is not easy.
We are working as well, adapting our governance and decision making structures, and it will take time, but we are moving forward.
I wanted as well to share, having this opportunity, a critical point related to the funding cuts as a political choice.
The global funding shortfall is devastating, is devastating for local actors as well.
And this is including having an effect on the transformation agenda, but this is a political choice.
The humanitarian reset is an understandable response to a decrease in funding and the need to prioritize.
However, the revenues of the ten armed companies came to $597 billion in 2022.
A tax of 3.6% on those sales will have covered the years old humanitarian funding shortfall of $21.2 billion.
Last year, billionaires wealth rose three times faster than the year before.
We can and must tax the rich.
It is not about money, it is about choices.
Aid must be better connected with political choices.
Let me close it by sharing that localization is not just a technical adjustment, it's a shift in power.
It's about building a humanitarian system that is as local as possible, one that is built on genuine collaboration and complementarity and firmly centered on humanity and accountability to people affected by crisis.
We all have a role to play in making that happen.
Thank you very much.
I thank the Humanitarian Director at Oxfam International, and I will now give the floor to anyone who wishes to make comments or ask questions regarding the presentations we just heard.
Delegations are invited to press the microphone button to indicate their request to intervene.
I would like to remind delegations to strictly observe the agreed time limits for 3 minutes for interventions.
In order to accommodate as many speakers as possible, the microphones will be muted when the time limit has elapsed.
To ensure proper interpretation, delegations are asked to speak at a reasonable pace and to provide a written copy of their statements to the Secretariat at least 2 hours in advance of delivery.
We'll begin With the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom.
Thank you, Chair and thank you to all the briefers.
The UK welcomes progress made through the humanitarian reset over the past year, and the task now is to sustain momentum and move from commitments to delivery.
I will pose a few questions to the panel.
What concrete changes are you seeing at country level? Are coordination structures becoming simpler, faster, and more focused on delivery.
Thank you to the ASG for setting up the Afghanistan example.
I'd be grateful to understand how systematically across all contexts, humanitarian and development actors are working more closely together to ensure that people are not left behind during transitions, including through stronger engagement with the IFIs.
On localization, we've heard today some examples where there's already very good work underway.
But what more can we do to ensure that local and national actors are genuinely leading responses, shaping priorities, working through local systems, and responding to community needs rather than just being consulted or funded.
On leadership, how can we best support and empower humanitarian coordinators to shape responses to their context, ensuring the international system is flexible enough to adapt to different settings.
How are we strengthening systems so that governments and local actors are ready to step up? And finally, we remain deeply concerned by the scale of protection risks, particularly for women and girls, including conflict related sexual violence.
How can we ensure that even in a constrained funding environment, protection remains central to response.
The UK stands ready to work with partners to help drive these reforms forward.
Thank you for all your work and to ensure that these reforms deliver real impact on the ground.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Indonesia, followed by Germany.
Thank you, Chair.
Indonesia, thanks the panelists for their valuable insight.
The Humanitarian reset and UNAT present a genuine opportunity to strengthen coordination and improve humanitarian outcomes.
But the reset is only meaningful if it delivers real results for the people it meant to serve.
Indonesia, I would like to share three brief reflections.
First on locally led action.
Indonesia support evolving responsibility and resources closer to crisis, but emphasize that local leadership must mean more than channeling resources through local actors.
Strengthening localization requires sustained investment in local capacity, access to financing, and partnership built on trust and complementarity.
At the same time, reforms efforts should not reduce broader international humanitarian commitments or create new explosivities.
International support must remain adaptive to national contexts, respectful of national ownership, and sensitive to the complex domestic coordination and accountability process that exists in many countries.
Second, on simplifying coordination.
Indonesia supports reducing bureaucratic fragmentation in humanitarian response.
However, streamlining must respect different national capacities, domestic accountability frameworks, and budgeting process.
Reform cannot be one size fits all.
Third, on inclusive reform.
The reset must be genuinely consultative.
Reform process shaped predominantly by donor perspective risks overlooking the realities and priorities of affected states.
As an emerging development partners and employees of the global South, Indonesia underscores that affected governments must be involved in shaping reforms, not only implementing them.
Mr.
Chair, in closing, a question to the panelists.
As the reset advances, how can the humanitarian system ensure that efficiency gains at the global level genuinely translate into greater resources and decision making power for local and national actors on the ground.
I thank you.
You like I thank the distinguished Representative of Indonesia.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Germany, followed by the European Union.
Here, Germany would like to express its gratitude to Spain's exemplary leadership in organizing this year's Equis Humanitarian Affairs segment.
We also thank all the panelists for their insightful remarks.
Germany concluded the chairship of the OCHA Donor Support Group at the beginning of this month.
We are grateful for the excellent collaboration with OCHA and USG Fletcher and thank them for their important work in driving the reset forward, all while facing multiple severe humanitarian crises at once, from Sudan to Gaza to Ukraine.
We can assure you that Germany will remain one of the largest humanitarian donors and a strong supporter of the humanitarian reset as well as the UNAT process to build a leaner, more efficient humanitarian system that serves best the people in need.
Implementing the reset needs the whole UN system and membership on board.
Together, we need to, first, overcome parallel structures.
Germany supports the alignment of agency mandates.
Second, better coordinate services and data across UN agencies.
The supply chain Initiative, the Global Service Hub, and the Humanitarian Data Collaborative are steps in the right direction.
We have already seen promising initiatives, for instance, shared storage facilities of WFP and UNICEF.
All UN organizations need to step up these efforts.
Third, strengthening the pooled funds.
They are a proven instrument for improving coordination and allowing for more targeted approach.
Fourth, increased participation of local actors at all stages from anticipatory action to the transition into the development phase.
Local voices and priorities need to be at the center of our humanitarian efforts.
In conclusion, the roadmap to the reset is clear.
Germany is ready to contribute.
If you allow me one additional question to the panel, in your view, are the country based pool funds being used to their full strategic potential or what more could be done to deploy them more assertively in support of our collective priorities and to advance the humanitarian reset? Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Germany and I now the floor to the distinguished representative of the European Union, followed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Thank you very much to all of the panelists for the very rich and interesting discussion.
The European Union recently set out its vision on the future of humanitarian aid in a communication that was entitled Defending Values, Driving Reform and delivering Impact.
In that communication, we set out our commitment to and our expectations for a more effective, a more principled and accountable humanitarian system.
Our approach is built on three priorities, P, perform, and partner.
First, protecting civilians in the humanitarian space and upholding international humanitarian law is not optional.
It is the very foundation of all of our work.
The EU is taking decisive steps to strengthen its humanitarian diplomacy.
Secondly, performance.
Performance demands efficiency.
The EU wants to see genuine reform of the international multilateral humanitarian system and that means stronger and more streamlined coordination to avoid duplication and ensure that every actor plays its role, focusing on its core mandate.
Sloed approaches and fragmented systems are no longer acceptable.
They are wasting resources and in today's funding context, they are costing lives.
This holds true in the case of supply chain where the EU is driving efforts towards more collaborative approaches and joined up platforms and leveraging the exchange of data.
It also holds true for maximizing impact through economies of scale, promoting the most suitable and effective financing modalities such as cash and pooled funds.
I found it very reassuring to hear evidence of concrete progress from the World Food Program.
One question to the panel would be to give us further indications of how we can make sure that the more coordinated approach on supply chain, for instance, is rolled out across the system.
Finally, partnering, we need to have more localization, and we can no longer treat humanitarian response and long term resilience as separate because today's crisis blur these lines every day.
This is why the EU is championing an integrated approach to fragility, grounded in three priorities, an unwavering commitment to remain engaged in highly fragile contexts, a multidimensional approach to resilience that bridges humanitarian needs with sustainable development solutions, and finally, strategic partnerships with international financial institutions and the private sector.
Also on that point, we would like to hear more from the panel.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of the European Union.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, followed by Canada.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair and to the panelists for their interventions.
I would also like to take this opportunity to publicly welcome Mr.
Vdwata in assuming his new role at OCHA.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to acknowledge the progress that has been made in advancing the humanitarian reset.
At the same time, a lot more remains to be done.
As a strong supporter and donor of the humanitarian system, the Netherlands would like to highlight three points that I invite the panelists to reflect on.
First, progress on localization should not be measured solely by the percentage of funding reaching local actors.
Local and national actors need to have a meaningful role and be central to decision making processes in the field.
This also requires moving decision making closer to affected communities.
Second, coordination capacity needs to be strengthened.
Resident and humanitarian coordinators should be empowered to effectively prioritize, allocate resources, and identify gaps with full support from humanitarian country teams.
Strong coordination capacity needs to remain in underfunded and forgotten crises.
Hyper prioritization of humanitarian aid should be accompanied by stronger transparency around decision making.
Humanitarian actors need clear and shared methodologies for identifying the most severe needs.
Better use of data and analysis should help focus resources where they have the greatest humanitarian impact.
Third, humanitarian diplomacy needs to be at the center of reform.
Reform efforts will have limited impact if humanitarian actors are unable to reach affected populations.
The humanitarian reset should be accompanied by stronger investment in humanitarian diplomacy, including support for humanitarian coordinators and for OCHA in negotiating access and defending humanitarian space.
In conclusion, allow me to ask the panelists to identify where they see the biggest challenges in turning these objectives into reality.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of the Netherlands and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Canada, who will be followed by the United States.
Thank you, Chair very much for this opportunity to speak.
I wanted to take this opportunity also to just recognize the opportunity to hear from the different panelists presenting quite their respective views, in particular from the local actor organization.
I think it's a good reminder that when we talk about the local actors, what we're really talking about are the communities and the people that we are trying to provide assistance and service to with regards to the humanitarian system as it continues to reform, Canada recognizes the weight of the task before us and the seemingly impossible choices.
We commend the commitment and dedication of humanitarian workers, many of whom are putting their lives on the line every day to deliver assistance.
We also recognize in the moment of uncertainty and constrained resources, it is clear where and how donor countries support humanitarian action matters.
Flexible and early financing, including core support to humanitarian partners and support for system wide enablers, is key to maximizing impact and supporting the backbone of the global response system.
Canada is also investing in rapid, flexible mechanisms and prepositioned drawdown funds that can move quickly when crisis escalates, helping partners act early and meet urgent critical needs.
Also, to deliver in today's volatile and complex operating environments, the humanitarian system must be able to connect, analyze, and share essential data for credible needs, assessments, and decision makings.
As the reset moves into prioritization, considerations and decisions must also be consistently applied across contexts.
In this regard, Canada strongly encourages continuous improvements to the humanitarian program cycle and its methodology, learning from what works and being open and constructive to fixing what doesn't.
As the system continues to sharpen prioritization, protection considerations must also remain at the center of our analysis and our actions.
Efficiency gains are important, but must not come at the expense of quality, safety, dignity, or dedicated protection capacity.
Just a question for the panel in regards to what they're seeing at the country level as reset moves forward.
I think in a number of other discussions, it's always been highlighted the importance of dignity, livelihoods, and economic activity for the affected communities.
As the reset is implementing its changes and its reforms, how is this playing out on the ground in terms of the actions of development actors? I believe another delegation also asked, what does this meant in terms of IFIs and MDBs to help fill that gap? Because hyper prioritization I thank the Distinguished Representative of Canada and I now give the floor to the distinguished Representative of the United States, who will be followed by the International Organization for Migration.
Thank you, Chair.
The United States strongly supports the humanitarian reforms being pursued under the humanitarian reset and UN 80.
Our goal is to see a humanitarian system which is more efficient, more accountable, and better able to deliver assistance when and where it's needed.
Towards this end, we are focusing on a few key transformation levers, data collaboration, integrated supply chains, and other improvements that drive efficiency and effectiveness.
We underscore our support for collaboration on data.
This reform is long overdue, but nonetheless welcome now.
The Humanitarian Data Collective presents an opportunity to meaningfully transform how data is collected, prepared, and used to respond to emergencies.
We are closely tracking its progress and want to underscore that the time for scoping and planning should be closed.
It is time to devote our efforts to implementing the comprehensive plans that have been developed.
We urge the humanitarian community to collectively use data to ensure aid is reaching those most in need with the right activities and to transparently share programmatic results.
The United States expects all UN humanitarian agencies to contribute data and collaborate with the joint and intersectorial analysis framework, including in refugee contexts.
Through common standards and shared analytical approaches, the JIAF provides a tool for developing hyper prioritized response plans that direct limited resources to those facing the most severe needs.
We again register our support for the ongoing efforts to integrate global and crisis level supply chains, coordinate procurement of key items, and harmonize and optimize global freight and logistics.
We thank the agencies who are leaning forward on this work.
The UN integrated approach to humanitarian supply chains is showing nascent promise, but it needs to accelerate and scale quickly.
We look forward to updates on how the pilots are informing an inclusive and transparent broader implementation process.
These reform efforts mean little if the humanitarian community is not able to quantify how these changes are meaningfully resulting in change for those we serve.
That's why the United States stands ready to support the humanitarian system implementing these needed reforms and to monitoring how they are driving increased effectiveness.
This system has been too bloated for too long and the time for change has come We support agencies who demonstrate a commitment to reform and will hold accountable those who slow it down.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished Representative of the United States.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the International Organization for Migration, followed by Guatemala.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair, and also thank the panelists for the interventions this morning.
The humanitarian reset and UN 80 reform are only as meaningful as what they produce on the ground.
The test is simple.
Is the system strengthening coordination, improving the evidence base, cutting duplication, and holding the line on humanitarian principles in an increasingly difficult environment? There is real progress to report, and I would like to highlight three areas coordination, data, and delivery.
On coordination, the shelter, land, and site coordination cluster is already showing what working differently looks like.
By integrating site coordination with localized solutions, it bridges immediate service delivery with more sustainable responses and pushes decision making closer to where crises actually happen.
IOM, together with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies and key partners at national and local authorities are doing this in Ethiopia, Mozambique, Haiti, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan.
For us, reform looks like that in practice, a more integrated, more local, more accountable to the people we serve.
On data, the system is building a more coherent data architecture through interagency platforms like the Humanitarian Data Collaborative, which is co led by IOM and the Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response Organizations.
At a time of historic global challenges and shrinking resources, good decisions depend on data that is timely, interoperable, responsibly shared, and operationally useful.
The goal is to define needs more precisely, strengthen collective analysis, and direct limited resources to where they matter the most.
Data reform is not a technical side issue.
It is critical and central to the system's effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability.
On delivery, through the integrated UN supply chain approach, together with UNHCR, we're co leading on core relief items also alongside WFP, UNDOS and other partners by building practical models for demand forecasting, sourcing, and shared logistics.
The aim is to lessen fragmentation, better use our comparative advantage, and a faster, more cost efficient system.
But gaps remain.
Progress will only hold if the system continues investing in its operational backbone.
For us, the priority now is for all of us, in fact, to sustain momentum, deepen partnership, and ensure that system wide reform delivers measurable.
I thank the distinguished representative of the International Organization for Migration and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Guatemala, who will be followed by the Russian Federation.
Excellenci Thank you, Your Excellency, distinguished delegates, very good morning.
I wish to thank all of the panelists for their presentations and underscore that Guatemala wishes to stress how complex the current crises are and they require a humanitarian system that's able to respond with levels of coordination and accountability.
We have placed multi stakeholder action at the center of our humanitarian actions, aware of the fact that no actor alone can respond to the magnitude of the challenge.
Joint actions between national systems, the UN and humanitarian actors have enabled us to adopt a device.
Approach that has supported 70,000 people across our country, including people in a situation of high vulnerability.
These interventions are characterized by their multi secral approach, addressing, at the same time needs in the area of food security, health, and sanitation and also protecting other key sectors.
This integration enables more complete, effective responses, avoids duplication and maximizes the impact of the resources available.
What's more, planning is based on robust technical tools such as the humanitarian response plan, a multicual analysis of the different sectors that strengthens decision making.
Making them based on evidence and improves targeting assistance.
Guatemala's experience shows that coordination is a critical success factor for an effective humanitarian response.
Strengthening these institutional mechanisms, in particular in the context of limited resources is essential in order to ensure that assistance is timely, relevant, and focused on the people that need it.
Thank you very much.
The Chair, I thank the distinguished representative of Guatemala.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation, who will be followed in turn by the distinguished representative of Switzerland.
President, in my statement, I'll touch on one aspect of today's discussion.
In the context of discussion of a humanitarian reset, we think it's important to more clearly define what we mean by localizing humanitarian work.
In our view, in the majority of contexts, bringing assistance to the people in need should not lead to simply redirecting the majority of resources to some local NGOs.
Real localization should also and perhaps primarily mean expanding cooperation with national governments and local authorities and also strengthening the system of social support that the population depends on.
And work in this area was something that Oxfan mentioned too.
Also, localizing if we take localization to only be relying on local NGOs, then talking about a full shift from humanitarian response to recovery and development is unlikely.
In this context, we would only be creating parallel mechanisms for assistance which in the short term could be useful but are not built into national systems and do not strengthen state capacity and become unsustainable as emergency assistance diminishes.
In this connection, I'd like to ask how as part of the humanitarian reset, are they ensuring that localization strengthens and not circumvents national and local government systems and how can it ensure that the conditions are created for a sustainable shift from humanitarian assistance to recovery and development? Thank you very much.
I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Switzerland who will be followed by Cuba.
Here.
Thank you to the panelists for their insightful remarks.
Switzerland recognizes the progress made in the context of the human reset and UNA.
Reform must be judged by impact.
The humanitarian reset and UNA will succeed only if they deliver better outcomes for people affected by crisis.
In that context, Switzerland would like to share three points.
First, the debate on localization is over.
The question is no longer whether to localize, but how fast.
Localization requires a real transfer of resources, decision making, and accountability to local and national actors.
Second, power must move closer to crisis.
Decisions should be taken as close as possible to affected people.
International actors should support local leadership, not replace it.
Third, strong human coordinators and resident coordinators are essential.
Fragmentation is no longer affordable.
Humanitarian coordinators must be empowered to drive collective prioritization, accountability, and results.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba, who will be followed by Sweden.
Thank you very much, President, we welcome the organization of this panel in an international context marked by protracted armed conflict, increasingly intense and frequent natural disasters, the intensification of climate changing and growing economic challenges, and it's essential to strengthen the collective capacity of the international community to respond.
Cuba believes that an effective humanitarian system must be grounded in the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence, as well as on the full respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the national priorities of the states affected.
Humanitarian assistance will be more effective if it strengthens and complements national capacities and efforts.
We reiterate our thanks to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian affairs of the UN OCHA, as well as to the resident coordinator and the raft of agencies, funds and programs of the UN system that are present in Cuba.
For their support and the cooperation provided in light of the few challenges the country faces.
We recognize their valuable support in preparing responses to disasters, mobilizing resources, and coordinating international assistance when the time requires it.
We particularly underscored the excellent links, coordination and support with the resident coordinator, OCHA agencies, funds and programs at this critical juncture that Cuba faces.
Due to the toughening of the embargo to inhumane levels, levels including restrictions on fuel imports are having a grave humanitarian impact.
This policy is restricting our country's access to fuel, financing, supplies, and essential services, and it's limiting our ability to procure equipment, medical equipment, some technical equipment that we require to prepare and respond to emergencies.
The lack of fuel also limits the work of entities on the ground.
And those are the ones that are providing aid to the people that need it the most.
There's also difficulties that UN agencies face delivering provisions across the country due to this lack of fuel and this embargo is having severe damage and having an impact on our people, reducing our country's capacities to tackle emergency systems and to make progress with our sustainable development.
Mr.
President, we continue to advocate for international cooperation, solidarity, and multilaterlism as fundamental tools to deal with the humanitarian challenges of our time.
Thank you.
The President thanks the distinguished representative of Cuba and gives the floor to Sweden, who will be followed by Egypt.
Sweden, please.
Thank you, Chair and distinguished panelists.
One year into the humanitarian reset, Sweden sees important conceptual progress, and we believe that the shift from process to implementation must now accelerate.
We see three priorities.
First, the reset must remain anchored in the full breadth of the humanitarian mandate.
We are increasingly concerned that protection, IHL promotion, SRHR and GBV prevention are being squeezed out by more narrowly defined lifesaving criteria.
These areas must remain integral to response planning.
They are at the heart of the reset defend pillar.
Second, hyper prioritization has brought focus, but also structural blind spots.
We need a more systematic and comparable approach across crises to avoid deepening inequities in the distribution of scarce resources.
Third, and as we've heard again and again today, localization must be strengthened as a core outcome of the reset.
Increased pool funding for local actors is welcome, but it must also be paired with strategic direction and support for equitable partnerships.
This regard, Sweden would welcome reflections from the panel on one key question.
What are the most practical concrete steps we can take at headquarters and at country level to make localization a reality in day to day coordination, decision making, and financing? Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Sweden and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Egypt who will be followed by Norway, Egypt, please.
Schran.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair, for leading this session.
I'd also like to thank all panelists.
Egypt believes that this meeting comes at a critical moment of the humanitarian action all over the world.
It was Asked of the United Nations to respond to the increasing needs while using limited resources in more complex environments that are usually more restrictive.
In the Middle East and Africa and other parts all over the world, there is a real test of the humanitarian action of the United Nations in an unprecedented manner.
The method that the UN would respond to these crises will shape the nature of humanitarian action in the years to come.
We should not perceive that the humanitarian reset or UN 80 initiative, along with its humanitarian section as just simple internal reforms.
However, they must be perceived as effort to ensure that the system will still be capable of reaching those in need quickly with agility and in a way that would respond to the humanitarian challenges on the ground.
We believe that the new humanitarian compact as drafted under the auspices of the UN 80 initiative has brought about so many enhancement in certain aspects, as was uncovered by the Secretary-General report issued last May, for the comprehensive humanitarian supply chains are now tested in five areas in Afghanistan, Haiti, the occupied Palestinian territories, Somalia, and Sudan.
We believe that the more focused and short term humanitarian response and the greater coordination between agencies will assist in avoiding duplication and making the best use of resources For those in dire need to conclude, the effectiveness of such reforms will not be assessed here in New York.
However, it will be tested on the ground when those affected will sense the difference in a humanitarian response.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Egypt and I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Norway, who will be the last speaker in this segment.
Vice President, thank you to the panelists for the update and reflections on the humanitarian reset.
The sudden reduction in humanitarian funding came as a shock to the humanitarian system with grave consequences for people in need.
It also exposed how the system functions, highlighting the critical role of enablers and common services and the impact when these lose funding.
We have also deepened our understanding of the importance of locally led action, responses grounded in people's expressed needs and the barriers that must be overcome.
Member states and donors have long urged UN agencies and partners to coordinate better to reduce duplication and fragmentation, in particular at country level led by empowered RCHCs.
In return, we have rightly been called upon to better align our own requirements, requests, and funding decisions.
Over the past year, efforts to improve alignment have strengthened, revealing the potential for more strategic donor cooperation.
Norway is examining how our funding can better incentivize necessary reforms, including the UNA reform and the humanitarian reset, and how we can support locally led responses and existing local ecosystems.
We remain convinced that core and unearmarked funding are essential for effective action across humanitarian development and peace efforts.
Such funding enables predictability, planning, needs based response, and preparedness to absorb earmarked project based funding, such as through the country based pooled funds.
However, this is increasingly challenging amid a global trend toward earmarking and incentives that favor visibility over flexibility.
We therefore call on partners to better demonstrate the impact of flexible funding, and we would like to collaborate with others to drive a move in this direction.
To end with two questions, we welcome panelists' views on how to incentivize quality funding.
We would also like input on how member states can use governance platforms to drive reform and hold UN entities accountable for reform and collaboration, both globally and most importantly, at country level.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Norway and this brings us to the end of the statements during this first round.
I will now invite the distinguished panelists to respond to the comments made and the questions posed.
I now give the floor to the coordinator, Enrico Roi, acting Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and relief Coordinator.
Thank you, President.
Let me try and address some of the questions around some of the clusters.
I think very importantly, The issue of the humanitarian development interface was raised and how in reality that works in the field and also the link up with MDBs and international financial institutions.
I think here, the work of the reset and watch collectively or the humanitarian coordinators, with the DCO and the resident coordinators and the country teams and the humanitarian country teams are trying to do is first and foremost, was also highlighted, looking at data, really, um, the data collection, the analysis, and the deagggregation of that data to be able to identify first and foremost critical unmet lifesaving humanitarian needs.
But importantly also at the same time, looking at resilience, early recovery, and development needs.
Previously, because of systems and architecture over the years, it was rather siloed in approach where you had humanitarian data collected, the HNRP and cooperation frameworks, looking at the development side.
But here, I think the tool and the vehicle which has been adapted, and I can speak to it from examples I've cited, including in challenging contexts like Afghanistan where we deal with de facto authorities, where this is an enabler of joint up data gathering analysis and leading to also joint plans and transition planning where humanitarian needs in some contexts are diminishing, where that enables sustained development and resilience funding towards within the SDG framing.
This I think is really critical and an appeal also to member states and others is to support and fund that approach in country contexts.
I also want to highlight that there are different typologies.
There are some theaters where humanitarian needs are preeminent and the crisis is so complex and huge that the humanitarian action may be the dominant investment needed.
But there are others where it's post conflict and there's a transition happening where that joined up action can be supported and enabled.
In other contexts where clearly the humanitarian needs are going down, what is needed is longer term development and resiliency investments.
There I think again, the role of the IFIs are critical and there are quite a few examples.
I'll touch on Afghanistan again where the ADB, the Asian Development Bank, and the World Bank together look at the needs through pool funds, the Afghanistan Resilience Trust Fund, and through IDA and other blended financing mechanisms to support the transition and resilience investments in health systems, in education systems, in food security systems, for example, while the humanitarian part looks at the critical unmet lifesaving needs.
I think this is increasing the way to There are examples at a level of displacement where you had the World Bank's IDA fragility windows looking at displacement, giving concessional financing matched by grants to refugee hosting countries, for example, which is another model of demonstrating international burden sharing and solidarity with host countries as well.
So these are some of the approaches being taken.
Again, I want to underscore that there are country specific complexities and dynamics that also have to be factored in while taking these overall approaches, and perhaps what could be looked at is typologies of these countries which could be looked at for specific context post conflict, acute humanitarian transition countries where these joint approaches can be supported.
Strengthening pool funds, absolutely.
I think it is shown the evidence has shown that enabler is a critical enabler of joint up a planning of joint up prioritization and joined up resource mobilization as well.
At the country level, this is linked to the third point of a strengthening the RC EC role.
I can attest to the fact having been triple hat as a DSRSD RCETC that the role of a humanitarian coordinator, resident coordinator is to work with the humanitarian country team, all the partners on the ground, NGOs, INGOs, and others in the context of humanitarian coordination, and in the context of a resident coordinator, sit down with the UN partners and others to really build a coherent country needs a platform, be it humanitarian transition into development and resilience, and then resource around that.
That doesn't take away also a point raised by my colleague, while pool funds are extremely important enabler, that we also need to make sure that there is resourcing going to entities for the ability to deliver on some of these programs and the back end support, for example, in complex context, what sometimes is seen as overhead.
It's not overhead if you look at security, vehicles, comps, et cetera, are needed in some of these theaters to deliver operations.
The critical enablers of delivery also have to be financed in a sustainable manner because in many of the high dynamic and complex security environments, without those enablers, it's very difficult to reach the very people we try to serve.
Again, really supporting what the EU colleague has also mentioned about the multidimensional approach to resilience.
This is critical.
In some member states, we have, again, a historical legacy of maybe bifurcated funding channels where you have the humanitarian envelopes or entities and the development and resilience entities.
I think closer linkage between these also are really important because sometimes with all good intentions, if member states do channel resources in those two approaches, which then may reinforce at country level a siloed approach, really Having that dialogue also donorship and supporting that approach is critical also from member states.
On localization, one of the critical points that have been made and fully concur with this, this is not about outsourcing resources or sending additional resources to national partners alone.
Obviously, resources are critical for enabling action on the ground, but having that seat at the table in decision making and engaging with national governments as well is incredibly important.
Again, in the area based approaches that have been taken, bringing the humanitarian, the development actors, all of them, national, international, UN, and others together, looking at the needs, having a very robust and close dialogue with national authorities incredibly important that that discussion happens and fine tuning some of these priorities through that triangulation and that dialogue is critically important.
If not, it doesn't work.
It's not capital level set of actors sitting and looking at the macro big picture and aligning it but bottom up process.
I'm a strong believer of the area based coordination, where everywhere it has been tried and tested, it has given much more agency to national partners, meaningful participation in decision making, linking up with local authorities, often national partners know and work also with the local authorities, know the challenges on the ground and enable that triangulation, which I think is incredibly important.
Lastly, on uh the enablers and some of the challenges, I think here, supporting collective data gathering analysis and joint programming needs also member state robust support in that.
Looking at country typologies where transitions are possible to enable that.
Supporting area based coordination mechanisms and funding directly national partners who are enabled to do that in the context of Afghanistan is co chaired by development and humanitarian partners together.
But it also is a national and any other actor who's strong and capable in that location.
That's what is important.
It's not a one size fits all in one region if there are partners who are able, know the area, the dynamics on the ground and have the capacity, they are the entities that should be supported and empowered to deliver on this.
I think on the supply chain integration and the back end efficiencies that have been done, a lot could be done more.
I think here again, the support needed is to really where in these pilot countries where it's working to really looking at scaling it up with the resources, but also the political support at the level of organizations to be bold and not be risk averse.
Being risk aware obviously in the context we work that's essential, but to be also bold in that endeavor.
That, President.
Thank you.
L Garcia Secretariat.
I thank the acting ASG for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief coordinator, and I now give the floor to miss Rania Dagash Camara, Assistant Executive Director of Partnership and Innovation at the World Food Program.
Thank you, Excellency and many thanks to all of you for the comments and the questions raised.
I've bucketed them in three areas.
Colleagues, are you with us? Yes, perfectly.
Thank you.
I'm going to start with the harder one, which is actually the resilience and how we integrate humanitarian response and resilience.
WP is a very practical organization and food security, as many of you know, is fundamentally also about stability and national security.
So it is impossible for us to respond alone.
In Chad, it was critical for us to work with UNHCR, with the World Bank to make sure that refugees and host communities were able to farm working with FAO as well.
In Mali, it was critical for us to restore land and work with GI Zed and with UNICEF and with FAO and with local partners, building on development funding and World Bank funding.
In Sudan, working with the African Development Bank, we're working with FAO and many other local organizations to support displaced, be able to produce the fundamental objective is to reduce hunger, which we do both through the immediate life saving response, but making sure that we can tag that to the resilience and building of communities.
So we already work extremely collaboratively with the IFIs, with our sister agencies and local partners, and more importantly, anchored fundamentally in national government priorities in all of these contexts.
So that to me is work ongoing, but it certainly can be scaled up and grown considerably in most of the protracted humanitarian contexts where we are working.
And we rely on many of you who sit on the boards of these IFIs and MDBs to encourage continued work with the United Nations agencies, funds and programs and with NGOs and partners who are able to deliver collectively with us on this agenda.
So please keep this very much alive and central in your engagements at board level.
On localization, I think it's very important to appreciate that this is not just about NGOs and CSOs.
This is about the health workers today in Congo, the community health workers who are able to respond.
This is about the private sector transporters, the WP employees all over the world in our operations, who are part of the local economy.
This is about every local partner that we buy grain from regionally or locally.
So the spectrum of what is localization and is the backbone of our operations is actually quite wide, and all of it is critical and you enable us to respond across that spectrum.
Finally, what can you do to support us? I think you do a lot already by enabling us even to be in this conversation, by supporting us to have the backbone of our operations and response in play.
It isn't possible without your support both politically and from a resource perspective.
But to enable the reset and the UN 80 to succeed, we need you to sustain the pressure on all of us.
This cannot be an optional offering.
This has to be mandatory if we are to see efficiencies, especially on the integrated supply chain.
So as you engage partners that you support and fund, I think it's going to increasingly be important that you tabulate, that you also expect them to subscribe with the different reform efforts.
It cannot be optional and I cannot underline that enough.
Because for it to be just an opt in for a few agencies will never make it as efficient as it's supposed to be if the entire system subscribed.
I think that's a fundamental point.
I think the other critical one I had already mentioned Funding pool funds that are country based that are focused on supporting local partners is fundamental and critical.
We cannot work without it.
Nobody knows contexts like people from the context, and that is critical.
But the ecosystem that we operate in has a balance to it, a balance you created actually with us.
That means that you have to be able to support us as well.
Bilaterally so that we are able to preposition, so we are able to put in the infrastructure so we are able to build the partnerships locally and invest in local transporters.
All of that has to be part of the way that you perceive the system and understand it and the way that you fund it.
My final ask, which actually should be the first for all of us.
You all carry significant political weight.
If there are no political solutions to the conflicts that actually instigate a lot of this need and hunger across the world, then We will not find an end to humanitarian need.
We need political solutions and we need conflicts to stop.
With that, I hand the power back to you, Excellency.
Thank you very much again.
I thank the Assistant Executive Director of Partnerships and Innovation at the World Food Program.
I now give the floor to Mr.
Mohammed Ag Aya, Deputy Special Representative for the United Nations multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic and resident coordinator and humanitarian coordinator for the Central African Republic.
You have the floor.
Thank you very much.
I think Kenya and Indra really covered quite a lot on the questions that were asked, but let me just maybe give some concrete examples from a country perspective.
When we talk about simplified coordination, it's really a coordination that now doesn't require you anymore to have OCHA on the ground or to have a UN agency on the ground or even an international NGO.
But as long as you have a national NGO, for example, in an area where you have interventions happening, you can actually rely um, and you should rely on that national NU as well, working with the local communities and the local authorities to actually do the coordination that you will need to see happening in that area.
The other aspect is also to ensure that the national NGUs are actually even taken now higher in terms of the responsibilities with the clusters.
For example, creating clusters at local levels where you have the UN or the OCHA, you put them as well in the seat for this kind of coordination.
There was a question about how can we ensure the efficiencies that are made at the global level to a down at the country level in the context of the reset.
What you have seen here in South African Republic is that activity reset has helped us and has helped me particularly as Illing coordinator to be able to push for efficiencies in terms of how our offices, for example, are co located, how our logistics are shared among the partners, and how some very basic services, for example, simple Internet connection is also become a shared service instead of each agency having its own question and I can't tell you how much of saving we can make just by ensuring that we have those kind of arrangements, which of course, the reset has very much pushed us to do, and has enabled me as the coordinator to actually also push down on the agencies.
There was a question about how can the pool fund be used more strategically? I think if you can take the context of current example from here, this has actually enabled me in the context of reset to increase on localization, as I said earlier, the disbursement of funds from the fund and uses has significantly increased over the past four years.
But not just actually giving the money to local and Jews, but actually ensuring that the community's participation in what we do is very much part of everything and is the backbone of even how actually going forward, how we decide on the needs for them by themselves instead of this is done by us.
It has also shaped very much how the coherence has improved on the ground and in what we do.
And at that point that form was also important, is it allowed us to have a window targeted to, for example, women led organizations for most of the times were actually left out not only the decision making process, but actually from benefiting from enough resources to be able to do their work.
The last point maybe just to come back on what are the most practical concrete actions to make the reset a reality at the country level.
I'll come back to the issue of country based pool funds.
I think this needs really to be given priority and supported, and this should also be done through multi year predictable funding to allow us to be able to plan and plan well for a long time.
And the second point for me is to really make the reset not only the responsibility of the AC and OCHA, but that's the responsibility of all humanitarian organizations, but also the responsibility of the journals.
And the last point is really to see how going forward, we need to look at how we simplify or we minimize, you know, the whole issue of risk management.
On especially fiduciary risk management and use of resources to local NGOs because, of course, we know that these are not always sufficiently equipped to respect all the standards.
Of course, we do everything we can do to improve to capacity them.
But I think it's important to really keep in mind that if you want to make more impact in this agenda, then we really need to accept to take some risks and not just pushing the risks on them.
So B, thank you back to you.
Lula Garcia represent the litigate.
I thank the Deputy Special Representative.
I now give the floor to miss Marta Valdes Garcia, Humanitarian Director Adults Fam International.
Thank you for all the points that have been raised and the questions.
I will try to bring my views and some experience on some of them.
We'd like to start by all the discussions and the points related to the nexus and the links between the reset and the nexus, especially because for five years, I co chair the Interagency Standing Committee group on the Nexus together with UNDP.
One of the key challenges we are facing with the reset is that there was no option but prioritization and hyper prioritization.
The assumption is that the population that will not have access to the prioritized response, they will have access to some development funding, and other type of support including from the private sector.
However, we know that the risk tolerance of different actors is quite different.
To which extent is development funding reaching very fragile states? To which extent private sector is investing in fragile areas and is helping the population cope with the challenges of crisis.
For a long time, we spend time in the humanitarian sector trying to see how we work more and better with development actors.
I think that development actors have been trying to work more and better.
But the reality is that criteria for decision making are different.
It's very difficult in some cases for development actors to be supporting countries with political challenges.
The reality as well is that the drivers for investment have different risk thresholds, while humanitarians are have a higher risk tolerance, development actors have less risk tolerance, and that makes a big big difference and the toil of those decisions is paid by local actors.
I think that it will be quite good to have a conversation and potentially to have member states pushing for clarification in terms of the risk tolerance and launching some initiatives to bring actors together to share risk tolerance thresholds and approaches that could ease the challenge.
The good news is that when we speak about localization in general terms, local actors do not separate whether they're doing humanitarian or development.
In fact, they work across the spectrum without making such a difference.
I really welcome all the reflections about localization is not anymore the way it is a fact and how we can scale up.
And I think that funding remains the key challenge.
When we say we want the local actors to be part of the decision making and to be part of all the critical coordinations, well, indeed, they need resources to have the people to invest time in those decision making space and coordination and local actors do not get a lot of funding for those critical functions.
Another critical area that we have been discussing is about risks and IHL.
I wanted to share a very brief quote from a partner.
We did an analysis of research on the partnerships in relation to a the access problems and the bureaucratic impediments.
The partners told us, for example, in relation to counterterrorism restrictions and excessive donor compliance burdens that fall disproportionately on them, they told us that the situation could be defined as risk without recognition.
And responsibility without protection.
They said, and I am quoting, when things do go wrong, you are left high and dry.
It's not just one agency or donor, is the entire system.
It's not about funding for implementation.
It's about funding for having core competencies and capacities and to ensure that they are protected.
That I just wanted to make a little point about the system, the fragmentation, country baseball fans, and I think that all of us we agree that there is a need of reform and for us to be working on efficiency.
But I would like to ensure that we keep in mind the learnings from the crisis we are going through and the fact that excessive dependency on only one mechanism is a high risk and are we ready to put this risk on the population that is facing an impossible situation.
Maybe while looking at efficiencies, we need to ensure that we build a humanitarian system that is resilient and therefore, we may have different type of approaches coherent and coordinated to improve support.
Thank you very much.
A I thank the Humanitarian Director at Oxfam International, and I now give the floor to Mr.
Ambani v Uber, Executive Director of Association Tinta.
Thank you very much and thank you for the questions and the interaction on localization.
I'd like to go back to the reality in the field and to share an anecdote with you.
For a long time, communities worked with organizations from these communities as part of a work on development.
One day, we saw conflicts and crises arrive.
Then we ended up in this situation with conflicts and crises and new actors turned up to help us to address these crises.
These development actors, when they arrived, told us that we are humanitarian workers, we're here to help.
This help from humanitarian actors started by excluding local actors on the pretext that they didn't know much about humanitarian work and they didn't know about the humanitarian principles.
Local actors then accepted that.
They went to learn from the humanitarian actors and accepted that they understood better what humanitarian work and what humanitarian principles were.
They were then trained by the same actors so that they were then able to deliver good quality services of humanitarian services.
So in order to receive financing or for taking decisions to work in their own country, in their own communities, they There are other problems here as well.
Here, let's go back to this question of capacity.
There is still not enough trust placed in local actors.
During the development period, we did trust local actors who had good outcomes in the field with local actors, but thanks to the advocacy and thanks to the work of some actors, we've ended up by accepting that local actors, we are on the level of humanitarian coordination and progressively bit by bit, those actors who banned from country teams who were banned from customers.
They've started bit by bit to work within these spaces.
But as they enter into these spaces, it started off as being a box ticking exercise.
We had local actors on the table, but at some point, these local actors realized that their presence in these spaces was just a box ticking exercise and it didn't change anything.
So we need to change this position of having local actors at the table.
There needs to be added value.
This added value as the local actors is really that they can speak for their communities.
They can bring to the table the real needs of the communities.
They can share the priorities of their communities so that we can have an influence on the decisions that will then be made regarding humanitarian assistance or regarding other work for the benefit of communities.
Today, there's a lot of discussion on localization and a lot of it focuses on the financial side.
Why? Well, because local actors in crisis affected countries can sometimes from one day to the next, not have any access to financing quite simply because they're working in secure areas and development actors decided that they weren't no longer able to invest in these because of the security issues.
The only people who could invest were humanitarian actors and humanitarian actors, prioritized international humanitarian organizations.
But Now, here we're working on the reset on localization and everyone's working, listing all the panelists have returned to this idea of localization.
As a local actor, as a national worker, I'm happy to be at this table and to hear what everyone has said on localization.
But what's really an obstacle here to localization is trust is confidence.
That's what's really holding us back.
There's not enough trust in local actors despite everything that's happened.
Still there is not enough trust in them.
Someone was asking earlier, what are you asking member states to do today? We are asking you to trust us.
Much like the trust that you have in our organizations, we would ask primarily to trust us.
Because these communities, our communities trust us too.
If we fail, it's not going to be you that suffers, it will be these communities.
The communities who will expel us from working with them because we don't meet their aspirations anymore, because we're not supporting them anymore.
That's the worst case scenario for a local organization.
The second element, we often talk about the nexus, the reality of this nexus.
In all of these conferences, this is talked about a lot, but On the ground, this nexus is still a challenge.
Why? Well, quite simply because in our own countries, we have two agencies, one that works on humanitarian issues and one that works on development.
They're often working in the same building, but they're not working together.
They're each working on their own side where they have their own indicators, their own outcomes.
When we ask these two bodies to work together, then it's difficult because they've all got their needs and outcomes.
Until we can merge these, we will never get a nexus because the problem of nexus is who's paying for what and when.
So first, one thing, and then you do another.
That's not how it works.
Things need to happen at the same time.
So one of the realities here, what we've asked the member states is to see how your different funding agencies, how can they talk to each other better? How can they communicate better, agree, and then they can provide together this response that benefits the communities.
When we talk about indeed take into account community realities and prioritizing that, it's exactly to avoid that we end up with a situation where we're confronting state sovereignty.
Today, no, we say states have their sovereignty.
If they don't respect humanitarian principles, no, that's not the problem.
The only difficulty that our states have today is that they've taken a commitment before their own communities and that commitment consists of saying that we will work to ensure that you can then have opportunities to have economic development, to be an agent in your own development.
But in actual fact, we're all mostly focusing on to humanitarian assistance for these communities for the last five years, six years or so that's where they're in a situation of high need.
If we were able to bring around the table these communities priorities, then I think the states would have no choice but to accept that.
Who wants their populations to suffer? No wonders, of course.
I think that sovereignty and the humanitarian principles are the solution.
The solution is to take into account the voices of the community and their own priorities.
Today, the pool fund mechanisms like that are the solution and I very much appreciated what the representative Oxfam said earlier.
Let's not make mechanisms.
We need to have a single mechanism.
We have a diversity of lots of different mechanisms and pool funds are a good solution today.
I'd like to commend the pool fund of OCHA and the CRF who have come into the field on the ground and they've improved access to funding for local actors and they provided responses also beyond humanitarian issues can build resilience or start doing that.
That's what the communities are asking for.
Yes, diversity, but Within these pool funds, we should also think about how we can make sure that these pool funds focus on localization and don't end up with funding that rather than focusing on local actors actually go via international actors because that wouldn't be a successful use of this mechanism.
One penultimate thing that I wanted to address, this is gender based violence and abuses.
I think there was the United Kingdom and Sweden who touched on these issues.
At the beginning, in how we think about it, a mother who gives something is a perfect mother, we shouldn't complain, but we realize that there was a lot of abuse in the field.
Communities then understood that they had a right to receive humanitarian assistance and if there were abuses or violences, they had the right to complain about this.
So Communities know that they are able to complain about this, but the mechanisms for this don't work well.
Why? Because of a lack of funding.
Excellent job has been done, but it is blocked because there is no one to fund these mechanisms for transferring and processing information.
I think the ball is very much in all of our courts to see how as humanitarian actors, as development workers, how can we talk to each other, How do communicate? How do we listen to each other? How do we prioritize communities so that a response on the ground can be provided and that it is It takes into account the realities, it gives some dignity to these communities and for these communities to receive these acts, and it's not just an idea of charity.
Thank you very much.
I thank the Executive Director of Association Tinta.
This has brought us to the end of this segment.
Please allow me to thank all of our panelists for a very rich and insightful discussion.
This panel has provided a clear and practical picture of how the humanitarian system is adapting to an increasingly difficult operational and financial environment.
Across our exchanges, there was broad recognition that humanitarian organizations are already undertaking significant efforts to adjust to the realities they face.
These include strengthening coordination, simplifying structures, reinforcing accountability, and focusing limited resources on those facing the most severe and life threatening conditions.
We have also heard strong emphasis on the importance of country level leadership and on working more closely with national and local actors.
These approaches are helping to ensure that humanitarian action remains grounded in context and responsive to the needs of affected populations.
At the same time, panelists highlighted that these changes are not theoretical, they reflect practical adjustments being made under conditions of sustained pressure, including resource constraints, access challenges, and increasingly complex operational environments.
The discussion has therefore reinforced the central points.
The humanitarian reset and related reform efforts are not a departure from established principles and mandates.
Rather, on the contrary, they are an effort to preserve principled humanitarian action by adapting how the system operates under significantly greater strain to deliver against these mandates.
Excellencies, a number of key observations emerged from this discussion.
First, there is a shared understanding that adaptation across the humanitarian system is already underway.
Second, there is recognition that greater operational discipline and prioritization and coordination are necessary in order to sustain lifesaving assistance in the current context.
Thirdly, There is broad acknowledgment that these efforts must remain firmly anchored in humanitarian principles and mandates and focused on delivering tangible impacts for people in need.
At the same time, our discussion has reflected differing perspectives regarding the pace, scope and implications of these reforms.
Questions related to the implementation, financing pressures, and the balance between global coordination and country level flexibility continue to be areas of active discussion.
These perspectives are important, they reflect the diversity of contents and experiences across the humanitarian system and they underscore the need for continued dialogue and engagement.
Excellency is one message that has come through clearly during this exchange is that adaptation alone is not enough.
While humanitarian organizations are making significant efforts to improve the way they work, the broader environment in which they operate remains critical.
Sustaining effective humanitarian action requires not only operational adaptation, but also continued international cooperation, political support, and an enabling environment in which humanitarian principles can be upheld.
In this regard, the role of member states remains central.
Excellencies, as we look ahead to the future, this discussion points to the importance of continuing to support practical, inclusive and balanced approaches to humanitarian reform.
It also highlights the need to maintain a focus on outcomes, ensuring that changes in the system translate into more effective assistance for those facing the most severe risks.
Continued engagement between member states, humanitarian organizations, and partners will be essential in this regard.
Excellencies, this panel has set an important foundation for the broader discussion of this segment.
It's highlighted both the resilience of the humanitarian system as well as the scale of the challenges it faces.
It has also reminded us that while the system is adapting sustaining principled and effective humanitarian action will require collective effort moving forward.
Once again, I wish to thank all of the panelists and participants for their valuable contributions.
The council will reconvene this afternoon at 3:00 P.M.
In this chamber to begin its general discussion of agenda item nine.
The meeting is adjourned.