Protecting the Protectors – Centering the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel through the Reset

Good afternoon, everyone. Please find a place to be, find a place to sit. Thank you all for coming. Can everybody hear me? All right, great. I've never been accused of being too quiet, but too fast. Yes. So please wave if we, if any of us end up going too quickly and are difficult to understand. Welcome, everyone. My name is Tiffany Eastham. I'm from Nonviolent Peace Force and I'll be the moderator of today's panel. I hope we're all looking forward to spending some time together talking about this incredibly important topic, protecting the Protectors. And by the number of people in the room and the number of member states and civil society organizations who've participated in putting this event together, it's a real reminder of how important this is for all of us and centering our, our discussions around this incredibly important topic. So we'll get started. First of all, I'd like to start with a recognition and thank you of the long list of folks who have been involved in putting us together, starting out with Australia and Canada who've taken the lead on organizing the event for today. And please bear with me while I read you a list to show you exactly how important this is. From the member states side, we'd like to thank Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, the eu, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the UK and our civil society partners, Civic Geneva Call Humanitarian Outcomes, ifrc, Legal Action Worldwide, ocha, Protect Humanitarians and of course, Nonviolent Peace Force. So as we can say, that really, really shows us how much energy and interest there is in the topic over the course of the discussion. Today we have a number of speakers and I'm just going to share some signposting for you today so you can understand the direction of travel. For our conversation. We're going to start by looking at the data, setting the scene of what the situation looks like so we can understand where we're coming from and what we need to talk about. We'll then move on to operationalization, operationalizing member state commitments around protecting humanitarian personnel, and then we'll dig in a little bit around systemic reform and then we'll bring it all together at looking at accountability and prevention. We'll hopefully have some time for some questions at the end and some discussion and of course invite the discussion to continue on after we, we part company in the formal conversations. And just as we get started, maybe to ground us all behind the numbers, behind the policies. As we all know, there are people, real people who have been impacted by the types of, of harm that we see that are as humanitarians are being Targeted. And for the purposes of this conversation, to help me prepare for it, I really was thinking about a former colleague of ours from nonviolent peace force, who I will call Maria for the purposes of this sharing. Maria used to be a colleague, a staff member of NP in one of our country programs. And due to, of course, funding cuts, constraints, the team she was in, the project she was in, came to an end. But she continued the work that she was doing with her local community protection team that she had been a key person driving, pulling them together. And she continued doing the work because this was her community. She was a frontline humanitarian, local humanitarian worker, now doing it because it was what was needed and what mattered. Even as the ingo, the UN presence had been drawing down, there was an increase of pressure on her community, Armed forces moving into the area, and herself, together with a local community protection team, organized a relocation for a group of women and girls. They had used the best of their knowledge, the information that they had had, and they moved out of the area. Very unfortunately, when they in a place that they had stopped to rest and to take some water, they were set upon by armed actors. They were assaulted, they were beaten, and they were robbed. And this is a reminder to us, and this makes me think of Maria and those people, and that had we been in different circumstances, had it happened a year ago, maybe two years ago, they would have had many more options. There would have been a much more robust group of humanitarians writ large to be able to support such a thing like a relocation like that. So keeping Maria and all the people like Maria in our hearts and in our minds as we move forward and have this conversation today. Thank you very much. So let's move on. Can I invite you, your excellency, Ambassador James Larson from Australia, to open the discussion today with your opening remarks?

Well, look, thank you very much indeed for that warm welcome and setting the scene in the way you have. I think there can be few areas more troubling than the notion that the very people who put themselves in harm's way to protect those who are the innocent victims of conflict should find themselves at such peril. And we know very well that the present time is a period of extreme peril for such individuals. And it's not just a consequence, I think, of deliberate decisions by particular actors, but it's also a consequence of the way conflicts are playing out. And it's a consequence of, I think, the extreme violence that we're seeing in so many different conflicts. And as a community, we need to reflect on that. Very, very carefully indeed. And in particular, I think we need to go back right to the very fundamentals of international humanitarian law, the very fundamentals of the principles of the conduct of conflict, to recall why we put in place the regimes that we did in relation to the protection of civilians and in relation to the protection of those who are innocent and who need protection in the course of conflict. And of course, those who do the protecting, including of course, medical workers, but also humanitarian personnel, are so important. It was with this in mind that Australia initiated the development of the Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel during Unger High Level Week last year. And we did so with a really important group of countries which we'd initially brought together a couple of years ago to have a conversation about how we could make a difference in this space. And those countries are Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Sierra Leone, Syria, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. And of course, Australia. And we have, I think, ourselves been surprised by the rapid take up of the reaffirmation of the commitment to the obligation to protect humanitarian personnel. Over that time, more than 110 states have joined the Declaration and pledged to take new concrete measures to keep humanitarian personnel safe on the grounds that, of course, civilians cannot be protected if those protecting them are under attack. Today's event is critical because it's part of the conversation about having stood up and reaffirmed and of course, many others, and Switzerland is amongst them, many others in the forefront of this debate about the importance of protection. Having stood up and reaffirmed our commitment to protection, including protecting the protectors, there is the question, what do we do about it? And I think your comment just a moment ago about the operationalization of our obligations is so important. And when I reflect on what that means, part of it, of course, is about transparency, part of it is about data and ensuring we track what's occurred and how it's occurred and the consequences. It's having a high level of global visibility of the victims themselves. And I think ultimately it's about a degree of political, sometimes perhaps legal, but especially in the first instance, political accountability. And so I really commend the conversation that you're leading here today. And I reaffirm Australia's absolute commitment to this work stream and our determination to deliver practical operationalization of our commitment to do so. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ambassador. And Ambassador Lametti from Canada. Can I invite you?

Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you, James, for your opening remarks and thanks to Australia for your leadership, both in spearheading the Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel. And continued efforts. Canada's proud to be a signatory of the Declaration and we're equally proud to co host this event today on protecting the protection protectors. Humanitarian personnel in particular local actors are a lifeline to millions of people who are affected by conflict and disasters. And without you, without them the risks and the risks they undertake, life saving assistance would not reach civilians in need. Your work should be celebrated. But over a thousand humanitarian workers have lost their lives over the past three. Three years. This is a threefold increase over the previous three year period and it's. It's frightening. Statistics from the Aid Worker Security database show that it is often the actions of member states that are behind security incidents affecting humanitarian workers. Today's event will consider concrete measures that can be undertaken to enhance the protection of humanitarian personnel and how member states can translate police political commitments into practical action. Canada is committed to working with other member states as well as humanitarian organizations for the protection of civilians and to provide assistance and protection. It's urgent that we take concrete and collective action. I now pass the floor back to the moderator, Tiffany to commence the dialogue with our esteemed group of panelists.

So, thank you.

Thank you very much. Wonderful. Well, I'd now like to introduce to you Abby Stoddard, who is a partner with Humanitarian Outcomes. And Abby will set us off with some data, some scene setting and a new term I learned in the preparation, a data chapeau. Can I invite you?

Thanks, Tiffany. And I'd like to thank the ambassadors for their words and for post hosting this event today. The figures that I'll be quoting are from the Aid Worker Security Database which my organization runs to track incidents of violence against aid workers worldwide. When 2025 began, we had some hope that it would turn out to be better than 2024. But instead we've seen continued unprecedented levels of casualties. Fatalities did come down a bit, but the total number of aid worker victims actually rose, making 2025 a close second to 2024 as the worst year ever recorded. Now, the 2025 numbers I'll be quoting are provisional while we conclude our verification process. But as of now, we count 959 aid workers affected in 572 major incidents. And that includes 335 aid workers who were killed, along with 230 wounded and 149 kidnapped. And in one of the most striking statistics, we record 245 aid workers arrested or detained by state actors, which marks a high point for this type of incident which has really surged over the past five years. And we draw attention to the phenomenon of detentions because we see this as emblematic, as the trend the ambassador mentioned, of state actors being responsible for more and more of these incidents, as opposed to non state armed groups, which had always been the case in previous decades. State actors and national militaries were responsible for over 50% of the fatalities in 2025, which not only reflects the current landscape and intensity of conflict, but we think also speaks to a growing impunity of state actors for violating the rules of war and international humanitarian law. And even though many of the fatalities can be ascribed to collateral violence when it comes to detentions, this is a deliberate tool of harassment, intimidation and obstruction of humanitarian aid. So also, while both local and international humanitarians have been targeted, most of the detainees belong to local organizations, meaning that these raids on office sites and the mass detention of staff has become a means of control and suppression of civil society more generally, in addition to hampering critical aid to people in need. Finally, I'd like to note that these challenges, as everyone knows, comes amid soon severe funding shocks to the humanitarian system. And I'm sure we'll be talking more about that later. But this has already had the effect of shifting even more of the risk burden onto local frontline actors who already lack the resources to provide adequate security and duty of care to their staff. The Declaration on the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel and before that, security council resolution 2730, we think shows real momentum towards potential accountability and consequences would be the first time we can track the success or failure of these initiatives in the toll suffered by aid workers. So I hope and look forward to the discussion later, really talking about how Member States can quickly move to concrete implementation of the commitments that they've set out. Back over to you.

Thank you so much, Abby, for setting that scene for us. Now we'll move on to our next signpost, which is the operationalization of these commitments. And I'm going to turn to you. Hisham Kadray is the Executive Director for Civic, and I have a couple of questions for you. We'll start with the first one. How can work at the policy level contribute to the prevention of civilian harm and in particular harm to humanitarian personnel?

Thank you very much for the question and I want as well thank the organizers of this event. It's very important to speak about it and the title speak for itself. If we are today in 2026, to speak about protecting the protectors, it means that we really went in different world, even worse than the previous decades. So it's really let's say timely, to take the issue, to tackle it and to find concrete ways. For me, what I want to say first is that humanitarian personnel are part of the Syrian population. They are part of the communities. Of course, we focus a lot about staff working in the un. They do an amazing work. But let's not forget as well about the local informal humanitarian workers that risk their life on a daily basis just to survive. And you gave the example of Maria, that's a part as well of these community groups. They are part of the social fabric basically of a community. And if they are attacked, the entire environment is being basically dismantled. So it's creating even more risk than just targeting the action that they have. We as well commend the work of Australia for the declaration, following the amazing work of Switzerland, Australia on 2730 resolution, where we provided inputs as well as other organizations and for us how policy work could help concretely on the ground workers. I will speak about at three levels. The first one at the national level, by making sure that host governments develop inclusive national protection of civilian strategies or frameworks that includes explicit reference to protection of humanitarian personnel. We've been supporting Somalia, for example, to develop their national POC framework. It was adopted two weeks ago and there is explicit reference on how to make sure that security forces in Somalia and other actors are protecting and having all the remedies to improve the protection of humanitarian personnel. This is the whole of government strategy to strengthen this approach to make sure that we have a comprehensive engagement with all the sectors of a government. This is extremely important to build a culture of POC and the culture of respect to protect the protectors. On php, there are three specific sections. The protection of Unitarian personnel, the Unitarian Access and accountability and these. There's explicit mentions in those frameworks that are developed in the various governments that we are as well working in. At the regional level, the engagement with regional actors, in the same vein, to make sure to streamline production of civilian and production of UN personnel considerations into any tools or guidance notes that they develop. At the regional level, we engage with NATO, for example, when we review their POC strategy to make sure as well that there is a reference and inclusion of the protection of humanitarian personnel on the ground whenever there are actions. Same thing, the engagement with the African Union, for example. I can commend the work that is done with them and they welcome as well more inputs in this particular topic. And then at the global level, the work of the resolution where you state members ask for inputs of societies that have the data that have the knowledge it is contributing to make the case and to bring concrete elements in framing better the resolution and the development of political declarations, as you have today and others, to make sure that this issue is as well being raised at the global level. You talked ambassador as well about high visibility of the issue. I think if to adopt it at national, regional and global level we can have policy development makes an impact in protecting Utah personnel on the ground. Thank you.

And while you're there, if I could ask you a follow up question. Civic works closely with security forces and communities on issues of protection writ large. And in this case for the purposes of our conversation for humanitarian personnel, could you take us a little bit more into the specifics of what that actually looks like and maybe sort of thinking about are there some good practices that we could learn that we could take a bit more broadly?

Thank you very much. Indeed. Engaging with defence and security forces is essential if you want to have an operationalization of this particular topic because they are the ones on the ground that when they launch operations can cause harm to civilians and thus to humanitarian personnel. I could propose it in three key areas. The first one for me is knowledge increase. We need to make sure that there is increased knowledge and awareness of this topic to the defence and security forces. And this can be done through dedicated trainings with modules specifically specific on this topic. Second one, development of civilian harm mitigation toolkits with guidance SOPs that are basically framed around the protection of humanitarian personnel because they have specific concerns and issues and as well trainings where you can invite humanitarian personnel into the training curriculum development. So it's a training that takes into account the realities of humanitarian personnel. We've been working with military academies and war colleges in conflict affected countries on these particular topics and there is an increased receptiveness of this topic because they know that it is their duty to make any steps to reduce harm to civilians and in particular humanitarian personnel. So knowledge increase. The second one concrete engagement is increasing the connection between the security and defence forces and communities and civilians. They need to have space where they can engage and know each other through the civil military approach and platforms that exist and training as well and increasing the role of civil mill officers into the various zones of conflict and through the creation of I think peace force. You have this community protection groups. Civic have this and other organizations where we can bring defense security forces hearing the concerns of the UN personnel and having better information at the end of the day when they go back to their barracks and launch operations. I'll give you just an example, I mean, in one of the countries in the African continent, we were approached by the field commander before launching an attack to a village. They asked, we have their local Utahan workers. We know they are working on the ground. We are afraid that our attacks would endanger them. What would be the advice? So I think this is really the type of conversation that we need to have without taboo with defence and security forces. And the third one is increasing the internal accountability mechanisms of the defence and security forces. You talk about accountability, but there is a clear need to make sure that they hold accountable officers, soldiers, commanders that created, let's say, the attack or the violations against UN personnel. We've been developing what we call the civilian tracking harm mechanism. We built within the defense and security forces an internal mechanism that track any civilian casualty that is caused by the army. And we included a module on Utahan workers with that, they have the data to act on it and to have an investigation, amend compensation and reviewing the SOPs before launching a new attack. And this has been done with the Nigerian armed forces, the Malian armed forces, on the use of drones, for example, where they integrated the importance of protecting Ukrainian personnel. So to conclude, I will make sure. We need to make sure that from the data gathering is actually useful for the defence executive forces to act on it, increasing the visibility on the victims of those attacks at events at the national, regional and global level. And at the end of the day, we need to make sure that each time we have the opportunity, as today, to remind that protectors need to be protected to do their work. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Hem and a good reminder that this is not a simple problem and there are no simple solutions. It takes a multiplicity of approaches and a complex array of looking at the problem from multiple directions to be able to affect change. I'd like to continue down the path of looking at operationalization and introduce you to my colleague Yomi Kleinman. Yomi is our head of programming for nonviolent Peace forces program work in Ukraine. So welcome, Yomi. Yomi. There's been a lot of conversation this week around localization. And through that process, we also have to recognize that local humanitarian workers, local humanitarian personnel face particular risks. I think Hicham noted that in his opening remarks that the Maria that I spoke about is not only humanitarian worker, she's a member of the community. So I'm wondering if you could sort of reflect on your experience and think about what would we call upon sort of member states and the UN to think about how the work what they are doing and what can be done to help increase the safety and security of humanitarian workers at the local level.

Thanks for the question and for holding the space for frontline volunteers and communities who have stepped up in the face of like extreme aggression. And I think it's really important to note that when we say local humanitarians or volunteers, we are talking about civilians by and large. I mean, what happened in early 2022 when Russia moved into, invaded into Ukraine and escalated the conflict that had been ongoing? What we saw was communities and civilians themselves step up and support their neighbors and do the thing that the international community was not doing in its initiation. And so through this very autonomous and organic community led response, which is then matured and organized into volunteer networks and NGOs, we began to see an extremely large gap. What we saw was an outsourcing of risk from international community who is hesitant to step into high risk areas and offloading that onto local humanitarians and again to civilians who are taking the space. So what we found was the best way to protect civilians is to protect the people who are protecting them. This is literally what this conversation is about. And how do we operationalize that, push that forward, and to maintain that important space is, I think we need to look at it in two distinct but equally important directions. I think the first one is we need to maintain the space that this is very human centered. And how do we keep people safe today? How do we ensure that the people who are showing up for their community, stepping into the threat in the name of civilian protection, come home and are able to do this again? The other piece of this, which the gentleman from Australia mentioned is I think there's a shit. And this week I've heard a lot of discussion around political will and it feels ambiguous. And I think what you mentioned is moving into political accountability is a really important acknowledgement and at the beginning to step into what this looks like on a structural system. So the first part is on the ground realities, how do we keep people safe? The second one is how do we put pressure on systems that are meant to keep people safe, that currently are not rising to the occasion for which it was developed? And to ground this, the Ukrainian context, the Ukrainian conflict, and this is certainly true, what's happening in Palestine and Magaza is that the frameworks that we've designed are our traditional assumptions about what humanitarian systems and humanitarian protection looks like are being challenged. And to name the elephant in the room, a big piece of this has to do with the advent and increase of drone warfare and to ground our conversation in this, an INCO report that was put out a few months ago mentioned that 68% of humanitarian casualties and deaths were directly attributed to short range drones. A lot of us know them as first person drones. This is completely and fundamentally changing the landscape of humanitarian work and what it means to stay safe. So I think one of the first questions is, does this system that we're participating and working in, is it contemporary and is it able to adapt to the challenges that we're facing fast enough? And I think the first thing we need to do is listen to frontline volunteers. They know exactly what they need to stay safe. We don't need to invent new strategies. They're on the line, they're feeling and they're hearing the drones above them and they know what they need to stay safe. It's our job to ensure that those mitigations and those new practices for safety are compliant with ihl, are in line with humanitarian principles, and have considerations of do no harm within a wider principled response, not just one that is strictly restricted by legal frameworks. And then the question is, how do we act on those quickly because the information is there. We don't need to invent new solutions. A lot of these solutions are based in community and are growing and adapting as the context shifts. So even when they're uncomfortable for us from an IHL perspective or an international humanitarian perspective, I think it's really important that we host those conversations, that we get together to build consensus on what these local strategies look like in practice and how can we interact with them as best as possible possible and understanding that these people are risking their lives every day. If we do come to a place of acknowledging that their strategies are non compliant, how do we continue to interact with these frontline responders that are the frontline and most important protectors of civilians in a way that reduces harm, reduces the collateral damages that may result of them, and how do we act on that quickly so there's not the long delay. In short, what we're talking about is duty of care. And this is something that NP is really championing with Civic and with SDC and several other partners, local partners, CSO Alliance, RCC in Ukraine. As we're living this situation is duty of care, is how do we keep people safe? That's what this is about. So what we need to maintain is we need to maintain our funding to ensure that we prioritize the safety of civilians and humanitarians and not think of duty of care or humanitarian safety as an asterisk or something to be proud of, but as a fundamental aspect of humanitarian work, and this comes with minimum standards, to not have different elements of protection be siloed in individual organizations who are willing to take risk or step outside the box, but collectively do this so that all humanitarians that are interacting with international systems have the same types of protections. They can take them for granted the same same way that I do as an international worker.

And I just.

I would like to note that this plays in equally as with. With physical protections, as it does with mental protections. And I think looking through frontline responders in Ukraine and globally, local responders, I think the interaction with burnout and what that looks like to live in your community and to work every single day for a lifetime, what that does. So those considerations are really important. I think the other aspect of it is I think we need to, especially in these spaces, acknowledge system breakdown, that we have a really good intention in these rooms and we speak about the political wills. And now the real question is, how do we action that political will into substantive reality for the frontline responders? Because as we're moving towards realization of the grand bargain and localization, that can't come with a different type of. With a continuation of a outsourcing of risk. So one, we just need to put our money where our mouths are. Because what happens is when ihl, the realities of IHL are not realized on the front line or with local communities, then local actors take it on themselves to stay safe. And so duty of care is a. Is our best option to keep safe and an acknowledgement that something is not working. And as a last point, I think we need to talk about risk sharing a little bit, especially in spaces like this. At first, when we talk about risk sharing, we were talking about how do we share the risk space, the physical space in frontline communities for people in this room and the cabinets in these buildings. I think taking the political risk and the reputational risk is how we can actually show up for frontline responders is having difficult conversations. And a big piece of that is human centered because, yes, we represent countries and institutions at the same time. We are people sitting in chairs with microphones hosting conversations to push this further. And so as a last piece, aside from the larger structure, I would say aspects of solidarity and courage, to name these realities and to step into uncomfortable space so that those realities are consistently brought to the table. And then as a last piece, and I'll come back to how you open this meeting, is for me a sense of urgency to act, which I spoke about at the beginning because our delays and over caution can lead directly to harm is keeping people centered in this because once you feel it somewhere in your chest, and this isn't a hypothetical or something that's only in a speech, it's there. It's that sense of urgency where action comes from.

Thank you, Yomi. I think that's a great call to action for all of us to reflect on and just probing a little bit more deeply and drawing on your experience working in Ukraine and your comparative experience in other contexts. The robust and very well resourced response in Ukraine is widely discussed. What works, how it stands out as unique from other responses and perhaps within that, within the framework of the topic of today, could you share sort of what you think is working and perhaps sort of reiterating some of the points you've just made that could be taken into other contexts, but perhaps what should not be taken on or what won't transfer so easily.

Again, I'm trying to speak from my lived experience in Ukraine for what I see every single day, but I think this applies to contexts globally, especially when talking about the types of threats we are. And again to specifically name drone. The, the, the short range attack drones is the biggest threat. And so I think a lot of this needs to be grounded in that, but not limited to it. I think one of the most important aspects of the Ukraine response that, that I think should be echoed and mirrored in other places. One is we have the attention from the globe. There's a very different type of proximity to Ukraine than many other conflicts around the world. And that comes with resources and attention. And I think what we need to do is we need to leverage the resources and attention we have in Ukraine to identify and solve solutions for this problem and then not silo them just to Ukraine, a European nation, but set those minimum standards global, globally, to other contexts that don't have the same resources and attention. So that also comes with trust of local partners. Something that Ukraine has done very well again because of the autonomous and very proactive robust response by civil society. The international community has worked closer with civil society actors and NGOs and local organizations than anywhere I've seen. So I think that realization of the grand bargain again needs to come with resources and systemic and infrastructural supports needs to be echoed. Thank you,

thank you. Thank you, Yomi. And we're lucky to hear to be able to switch focus now to get a UN perspective. As we said, it's a complex problem. We all need to be working together on this. So I'd like to invite Aurelien Bouffle, Chief of policy advice and planning for ocha and Orelian. Let's start with a question. You've seen how member states have made political commitments to protecting humanitarian personnel. 2370 comes to mind. Australia's declaration on the protection of Humanitarian Personnel. And at the same time, as we heard in our, in our opening remarks, humanitarians are being targeted and killed at alarming rates and increasingly by member states, the themselves. So how can member states engage with OCHA and the humanitarian system differently to translate these intentions into outcomes?

Thank you, Tiffany. And thank you to Australia and Canada for, and our co sponsors for organizing this, these discussions. I mean, spoiler alert. I mean, if I had the silver bullet to that, we would have solved the issue. But I think there's a couple of things we need to do. First is just to acknowledge the situation for what it is. The killing of humanitarians today is not a series of isolated incidents. It's a symptom of something much larger, which relates to the erosion, I wouldn't say of the norms, but certainly of the respect for the norms, including the way parties to conflict, especially states, interpret their obligation under IHL interpretation. That in fact hollow out IHL from its meaning. It's also a reflection of how dynamics are changing on the battlefield under the pressure of new technology, weapons, and the increased risks and the pace of hostilities today and the intensity of hostilities. So, so just recognizing that already would be a good step, and I think we're getting there. The second thing is, of course we need to adapt and adjust. And on the UN side, on the security side, on the humanitarian side, this is ongoing. You have the humanitarian reset, for instance. But we're also discussing how we adapt our risk management system, how to point your camera, how localization doesn't become a transfer of risks, but really how the systems to manage security actually support local actors. However, here again, I think we need to be very candid and acknowledge that maybe in some context today we're slowly reaching the point where we should start questioning whether we can continue and stay and deliver. We are doing that. We are in Sudan, we are in Ukraine, we are in Gaza, we are in many places, but I mean, we are there to deliver humanitarian assistance, not to be sitting ducks in a shooting range. To put it very bluntly, and I think in some context I'm being very straightforward, these questions need to be raised. I would add that no government would accept to expose its diplomats, not even its peacekeepers, to the level of risks Humanitarians are exposed to. And I do realize I speak as a UN staff who is very protected in this industry. I'm not even speaking about our local colleagues, but we need to be very real about that. The second, as part of adjustments, I think we also need to to have a rational discussion about the cost of security in this kind of environment. And I'm sure, Bill, you'll touch on that. There's only so much we can cut. At some point we need to accept that reality. And right now on security, I think we have cut as much as we can. If we cut more, it's going to be about cutting corners in the management of security. So it's a plea also to help our UNDSS colleagues and INSO and others to help manage security. It is costly to operate in Sudan, in Ukraine and in Gaza. That's the reality. If we don't want to pay the cost of security, maybe we should reconsider being there now just to end. And to your point, Tiffany, we heard over the past days that the problem is not the norms, it's a lack of political commitments and implementation. I think it's a bit of a cliche. The presence of many member states here show that the political commitment is here. Many countries, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, others have put a lot of political capital in this issue over the past year, and we're very thankful for that. I think what has been missing, it's a bit of a common direction on what to do and how to do. From where I stand, I would say that in terms of security management and looking at what humans and organizations can do, I think we can do it. What we need member states to do is really help frame the discussion with other member states and parties to conflict. That's where the attention needs to be and maybe have very candid and humble objective but real ones to start raising the political costs of harming civilians. So, for instance, can we agree that every time a humanitarian worker is being harmed, there should be a public reaction and some outrage like it happens already with peacekeepers and diplomats, and rightly so, but just speaking out constantly when humanitarians are harmed? Can we maybe ask member states and state parties who operate in conflict where a lot of aid workers are being killed to report back to come and explain what they did in terms of investigation and accountability? How many people have been prosecuted in a different context? I mean, I'm not going to give you a figure, but I'm ready to bet it's not too many. We can also have objectives around funding. Can we agree that funding local organization right now to help them manage their security should be a top objective and that we need to have a discussion about how much this will cost and where we need to find the money. So I think really bringing it down to very concrete action and try to mobilize collectively around these actions could maybe be a step forward. It's not going to sort out and solve all issues, but at least it will put us in a better place than we are now.

Thank you, Aurelian, and thank you for your sobering and honest reflections and comments. I've heard some language this week around the importance of having courage to have difficult conversations. I think we hear in your reflections it's not always popular to sort of bring us down to the real issues and how difficult these things are and what it will take. And I appreciate you having the courage to bring that into our conversation today. It's not everything, but funding is certainly critical and key, as you mentioned, from a risk management, risk mitigation perspective. So, Abby, maybe I could invite you to come back into the conversation and sort of looking at how the funding contraction that we've all experienced, how is that impacting reporting, incident data collection, the information that we get for risk management, and what are your recommendations in that space?

Thanks. Yes, I'd be happy to, but first I just wanted to answer Aurelien's question about when do you see a legal investigation prosecution in 30 years of data that we have in our database? I know of only one and that was made possible by a foreign government taking a responsibility to facilitate the legal means within the host government. So it's very rare and usually the only legal action you see after an aid worker is attacked is a lawsuit by the victim or their families to the organization, to the actual humanitarian organization. So the focus is on the wrong parties. So in terms of data, I think the first real alarm bell for many of us in the sector was when Fews net, the famine early warning system, suddenly went dark in January after its funding was pulled. It's now back up in a much reduced capacity because the data streams that contributed to it, the programs that ran them, have also lost funding. So it's important to understand that there are network effects, that databases are interdependent and rely on each other and become better when they can interact. And sometimes you'll see a database keep going, but it can be hollowed out and the data not as comprehensive and not as reliable. When it comes to security for aid workers specifically, data is really critical for things like prevalence and trend analysis for situational awareness for risk assessment, for deciding where to allocate your resources, which are scarce and there's simply no way to mitigate risks in an environment that can't be seen clearly. We were lucky. We lost our funding as well, but we had some donors come in and plug the gap. But many other data streams haven't been so lucky. So I would say that one of the important things to think about is how to protect data and firewall them from political volatility if possible.

Thank you very much, Abby, and your reference to accountability is a good segue to our next thematic. I'd like to introduce Nick Letty. Nick Letty is the head of Litigation for Legal Action Worldwide and invite you into the conversation. Nick, can you share with us maybe a case that you might have in mind that really is illustrative of the level of how entrenched impunity is in these cases? And if you've got some wisdom on what could possibly be done about that, Absolutely.

And thank you to the host, the organizers, Canada and Australia, for posting this critical event. My name is Nick Letty, Head of Litigation at Legal Action Worldwide. For those of you who are not familiar with our organization, we're a nonprofit organization based in Switzerland providing legal advice and representation to victims and survivors of human rights, IHL and ICL violations around the world. And we do that through our teams on the front lines in East Africa, the Middle East, Ukraine and Southeast Asia. As part of our Protecting Humanitarian Personnel program, which began in 2022, we provided pro bono legal advice to entities, organizations and individual humanitarian aid workers around the world in several contexts. So I'd like to also highlight that we're part of the Protect Aid Workers Initiative. And, and it's through that initiative that we're able to, through funding from Echo, provide legal advice to these entities around the world. We're also an implementing partner of the Declaration, led by Australia, and are most grateful for your support in that regard. So, as an overview, we've supported over 140 aid workers through this program with Legal Services and helped secure the release of over 16 individuals who were detained arbitrarily. As highlighted earlier, this is an increasing and alarming trend. The criminalization of detained individuals, the criminalization of providing aid under the guise of national security or counter terrorism. It's often used as a means for the States to help further their agendas in armed conflict. So I'd like to highlight one case, of course, that you mentioned in your question. We've all been appalled by the statistics coming out of Gaza for Example, the idea of targeting aid workers with increasing severity. This is a scale that's unprecedented, but the strategy is not something new. And the case I wanted to highlight is actually from Sri Lanka. It's about 20 years old. I'm not sure if everyone in the room is familiar with it, but it comes from a massacre of 17 aid workers, including several who were executed, shot in the head in a town called Mutter Mutter Massacre. It was an NGO action Against Hunger, who had aid workers on the front lines who unfortunately lost their lives doing what they were sent there to do. This is one of the most gruesome attacks in Sri Lanka's quarter century civil war, and one of the deadliest attacks on humanitarian aid workers ever. Twenty years later, still no accountability. So this has had a chilling effect on aid workers in the country and in the region, and certainly one that has bred impunity in Sri Lanka. And I'd like to highlight one other example from the field we're hearing from our colleagues in South Sudan of incredible increasing attacks on hospitals and aid workers there, whereby msf, for example, has been forced to close cell several hospitals as a result of parties to the armed conflict in South Sudan targeting health care facilities, resulting in, I believe, the denial of hundreds of thousands of patients services. So a huge number of individuals have been deprived of basic services because of the attacks on medical facilities and humanitarian personnel. So what can we do? We have to do more than simply condemn these incidents. We have to meticulously document them and build cases and pursue accountability. And how can we do that? We have to protect and incentivize witnesses to be able to move forward. So often in these insecure environments, victims want justice, but they can't do it safely. We're a small ngo. We don't have the means to establish a victims protection program, so we rely heavily on partners for that. But certainly states obviously have the primary obligation to investigate and prosecute these crimes themselves. But so often, as we've heard today repeatedly, it's those states themselves that are the perpetrators. So when that is the case, we have to be creative. We have to use means outside of the perpetrator state to think about, okay, what are the other avenues of justice? What other means of recourse can we use? For example, principles of universal jurisdiction or. We've developed several cases of legal action worldwide, some brought on behalf of humanitarian aid workers, some of other civilians, where we filed cases with local prosecutors in different jurisdictions alleging violations, war crimes, crimes against humanity in several contexts, and have successfully opened a few investigations in different contexts. I'm not able to describe them in more detail, but it is one avenue we think is growing and has some, some degree of promise, particularly in this day and age where perpetrators travel to different jurisdictions and potentially generate more arrest opportunities. So in addition to those domestic opportunities, I also want to highlight regional pathways for accountability very quickly. One case in particular, we represent over a dozen civilians from Tigray in a case against Ethiopia at the African Commission of Human and People's Rights. Two of these clients are humanitarian aid workers. And we secured provisional measures against Ethiopia in October 2022 to make sure that they lifted the humanitarian blockade and restored access for civilians in Tigray. So where the state was not available to our survivors, to our clients for recourse, we took it to the regional level and indeed got those provisional measures ordered. The merits hearing was last year. We're hoping for a decision on that this year. So in short, these cases are not easy. They are challenging, but they're worth taking. And we have to be creative in the solutions that we find if the state is unwilling and unable to do so. So, thanks.

Thank you, Nick. And can we follow that, the thread of accountability as a form of protection? And if you have any sort of further reflections on that, and maybe a more specific question is looking at what is the role of the state, member states in terms of investigating and prosecuting when there are crimes against humanitarians?

Certainly. So in terms of prevention, I think the question was about we understand accountability is just one of the tools that can be used to prevent atrocities in the future. Certainly, as I mentioned, we can have accountability through the human rights lens, through human rights cases where remedies can include things like compensation, reparation, promises of non repetition, but also criminal accountability, looking at criminal investigations to hold individuals accountable, commanders in particular for ordering, for failing to prosecute and punish these violations as they occur. So it's these kind of criminal investigations that we can look to, they can help prevent attacks. Ideally, when perpetrators have noticed that there's consequences for their actions, whether it's through sanctions regimes, through criminal accountability or otherwise. It's when these perpetrators have noticed that, for example, they could be arrested while transiting through a third country, that they might think twice about repeating this kind of conduct. So it's a lot of humanitarian personnel are telling us from the front lines that they're very frustrated about the increasing impunity, kind of cyclical impunity that we're seeing. And each time they hear the same kind of words of condemnation, but not enough conduct, not enough political will. Behind states to actually enforce these arrest opportunities if and when they are available. So it's really, I think as a reminder, everyone here knows about states obligations under IHRL and, and under IHL to investigate and prosecute these crimes. And I think it really comes down to a civil society advocating to these states to, for example, open these investigations under principles of universal jurisdiction, enforcing these arrest warrants when and if they're issued, and making sure that there's a comprehensive network of states that are saying we will not allow safe havens for war criminals or people who target humanitarian aid workers. There will be consequences for your actions, for example, through arrest or other sanctions. Thank you.

And maybe we can just squeeze in one more question while you have you, Nick, and your specialized knowledge. Has legal action worldwide taken on cases where humanitarian aid workers have been detained, as that is one of the harms that we're increasingly learning about and if so, what have you learned from that process?

Thanks. Yes. So I alluded to that earlier. Essentially. Yeah. We have represented detainees in several contexts. And as I mentioned, this is a trend that's quite alarming in the sense that NGOs and humanitarian organizations are being targeted with criminal sanction merely for helping beneficiaries, merely for doing their jobs. And it's one where we've had moderate success in a case in Tunisia representing humanitarian aid workers who were detained for providing assistance to refugees arriving in Tunisia and transiting through Tunisia and attempting to apply for asylum there. So these are five NGO staff that we represent who were detained arbitrarily, four of whom have now been released thankfully. But they were detained for several months under brutal conditions. And one 66 year old woman is still being detained there. Two of our clients had deteriorating health issues while in prison. One of them was on maternity leave and unable to see her infant son. So some quite devastating circumstances. But glad that four of the five have been released and certainly we'll keep pushing for the release of the fifth one. But this is, like I said, part of an alarming trend whereby states are really criminalizing the core work of humanitarian workers. And one of the angles, because the case was progressing through Tunisian courts, is now subject to different appeal for different clients. But one method we found that was effective was to go through the UN Working Group on arbitrary detention. So we filed a complaint there. We understand they were in communication with authorities and we'll be issuing an opinion on the detention in their next session, I believe this September, in 2026. So we're hoping for our remaining client that this opinion helps secure her release. So like I said, when there's not availability of remedies immediately in country, we have to go to other sources for assistance as well.

Well, thank you panelists for helping paint the picture for all of us. We have some opportunity to have a further discussion and some opportunities for some questions. I first turn to your excellency from Switzerland, one of our co hosts, who would like to pose a question and make some remarks.

Thank you very much. And first of all also thank you to Canada and Australia for having organized this important event today and to the panelists for their interventions protecting the protectors that really has to do with humanity and is really an important part of the wider protection of civilians agenda. And when we were serving on the council, that was the time when we saw an increase in casualties among UN and humanitarian personnel. And this then also led us to work towards the adoption of resolution 2730 and being part of, of the Declaration on protection of humanitarian personnel. The big question, of course is how do you translate these kind of political commitments into action on the ground and really protecting the protectors on the ground. What we do and will do over the next few months is we are organizing a series of workshops to identify best practices, good practices of states in how they implement resolution 2730. And this then will later lead to a compendium of good practices which we are happy to share later in the year. My question would go maybe to ocha. We are in the midst of the humanitarian reset, which also means that a lot more services will be humanitarian services will be localized. And several of the panelists have alluded to it that the special vulnerability of local personnel and those people who live in the community and are active in delivering humanitarian aid while we as member states support the humanitarian reset, what can we do at the same time also to make sure that this does not go well, that in the end it will be the local aid workers who pay the brand, who are even more vulnerable and are really paying the price for the deteriorating security situation. And that they have to operate, that we can avoid, that they have to operate under different standards, that maybe international aid workers or people from international NGOs. Thank you.

Thank you, Ambassador. I think it's a fair question and Joachim also raised it. I mean, the humanitarian research is about like empowering local actors, trying to equip them. So they really take a greater part under the UN coordinated research response. I'm going to put it this way, but these actors are already the most vulnerable. So the question is how we do it without just transferring risks and exposing these actors even more. I think there's different options or a combination of options we need to explore. Some of them are already underway. So for instance, we discussing with organization like E. INSO and DSS how we adapt the Saving Life Together framework, how do we include local actors in UN Coordination mechanism, including when it comes to coordination of security management for humanitarians. But I think one of the very practical step for me, which is important and which would make a big difference is to integrate the cost of security in programming in the cost of programming. Right now for many organization you have a cost for programs and a cost for security and the security generally is not funding and the program is funded. If you include the cost of security in programming and don't push to reduce this cost of this organization, I think it would help us increase and improve security. What we don't want is exactly what Joaquim was saying is for these actors to feel completely helpless and adopt, I would say unhelpful strategies for everyone.

Before we move on to the next question, was there anybody else on the panel who had a particular question reaction to that?

Yes, I'd like to comment on as well and I'd like to carry on the conversation of like negative coping strategies that are showing up in real time in frontline communities as a result of non action or non engagement. I think IHL does keep humanitarians safe and it's absolutely critical that we center that in the things that we do in the mitigations and the new strategies we develop. At the same time, what we need is buy in and trust from local actors and actors on the ground for that to become real, for that to have a potential. But what we're seeing is new strategies for self protection is IHL is unfortunately being used as a trump card. That's a horrible reference these days, but is used as a trump card to not have the conversations to dig into the uncomfortable realities and the harder comfort conversations of how these mitigations become compliant. And I think the thing I would say to that is I don't think we have the time and I know our frontline partners and my friends who are exposed to drone threats and who has vehicles and who are in the hospital today because of because of injuries due to this. Have time for that. We can't wait for perfection to start taking action. And excuse me, and I have great pleasure to quote Dolly Parton and well my grandmother would say this but don't wait for a shiny bucket before the barn burns down. And so I think what we need to do is take action as quickly as possible and continue to integrate the lessons and the realities of frontline response in an imperfect situation.

Thanks Yomi. And for the unexpected calling of Dolly Parton here, I think you had something you wanted to share.

Thank you very much. And I don't know the Lepra, but I will listen to the song, the reference. No, just two quick points on this important topic of the transfer of risk to local actors. Because with the UN reset, we will see more and more local actors being more active on the ground and doing more work. And this will lead unfortunately to more casualties. I mean, this mathematic, unfortunately we should not just make sure that we still have the same level of visibility when you have casualties happening to local actors. Not even the same that we have visibility. I mean, I spent myself with the ICRC, 10 years in conflict zones. I have colleagues that lost their lives, international staff. I had a lot of colleagues that lost their lives. That national staff is not the same degree of visibility, let's admit it. So we need to accompany this reset, this transfer by as well thinking already now how we can make sure that whenever something happens, it's high on the agenda at the national level, on the media raising it in events as examples. So we don't have other examples. This is for me very important. And the second point is to make sure that those local actors have access on the ground to coordination meetings. When you are in the field, you have access to high level authorities, coordination meetings with other NGOs. Usually they are not involved, they are not around the table. And this is where we speak about security. This is where we speak about the latest news about. I heard this group coming to this area. So we need to make sure as well that there is a meaningful integration, two of these local actors that will be carrying the risk into those coordination programs, just to make sure that we can mitigate those risks in a concrete way. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I understand we have a colleague from the Netherlands. I'm sorry, I don't know where you are. There you are. I welcome you to the floor.

Yes, thank you very much. And thank you to everyone involved in this event. I've been listening very intently. It's always such a pleasure to hear actual experts speak about this super important work that you do. So thank you for that. You've outlined today a very stark reality that is the safety of humanitarian workers, which is under severe and growing pressure. I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out a recent report that was published by the Dutch Advisory Council on International Affairs, Aivrakstukke. For those who speak Dutch, it's called Aid Under Fire. And it actually comes up with a very, very similar and same conclusions that I've heard today. I would like to highlight two of the recommendations they made. First is that it is very, very important to restore respect for norms and international humanitarian law, and that without consequences for violations of international humanitarian law, the erosion of these norms will continue. So this is a vicious cycle we have to, as members of the un, pay protection, particular attention to. The second one that comes to mind is that humanitarian donors have a concrete role to play. So the AIV calls for flexible on earmarked multiannual funding, genuine risk sharing, and support to instruments like innovative life and accident insurance vehicles. So these kind of really concrete things that we should already actually have in place, but I believe we're still working on those. And also a very important point they make is that what Ocho already said is that we have to be willing to spend on security. We cannot cut our budgets in the area of security for humanitarian personnel. And so this should really be set aside from all the reforms and the cuts that we are working on. Now. Then my question would be, from your experience, in addition to those already mentioned, what concrete diplomatic or practical support from States would most immediately and sustainably improve the safety of frontline workers that you work with, from your experience?

Thank you, panelists.

Abby, thank you for that question. I think a lot of the groundwork has already been laid. You know, we have an international body of law. We have resolutions that call for accountability. And now we have a declaration signed BY O Over 100 member states that lays out some commitments. I think the missing piece is an implementation framework that Member States can report into, noting their achievements, noting their concrete steps toward these commitments, and which is publicly available for people to see what the progress has been, who has made it and who has not done anything. It's very simple to sign a declaration, but it would be interesting to see what Member States are prepared to do in terms of domestic legislation, in terms of international cooperation to pursue justice for some of these attacks and training for militaries, et cetera. That's just to name a few things that could be done, that could be modeled for others and good practice highlighted. And I think names, you know, country names should be attached. So that would be my preference.

A lot of good work has been done over the past two years or so on the normative on the policy with the declaration, with the resolution at the Council. I think what would really be a game changer is bring this to the crisis level in specific context. We now need to give, get into the concrete and in this context really look at how we raise the political costs, how we really put the pressure on parties to conflict. And I'm thinking of some particular context where it's state parties actually. So are we looking at arms transfer? Are we looking at UN sanctions? Are we looking. And I know it's difficult politically, I know every single context is different and dynamics around these are very different. But I think it's there that we need to start looking. And it goes to dragging points about respect for the law and credibility of the law in very concrete terms for actors on the ground, both parties to conflict and humanitarians.

Thanks. Just to reinforce that. And as we've heard, we have the tools, we have the resolutions, we have the laws. What really we need to push for are the implementation of these tools for accountability in particular as a way to prevent these crimes from happening in the future. And as mentioned, universal jurisdiction I think is one promising area, particularly when you have mid level, high level commanders who have travel patterns or assets in third countries. Those countries can be vehicles for accountability, in particular where victims can file criminal complaints and get an investigation going, whether it's through war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture or other statutes. A lot of states have universal jurisdiction laws that can be taken advantage of and we think the moment to do so is now. Thank you.

Just hang on one second. We're going to have a little sneak peek from Bill Blanchard from dss. We will hear from him at the end. But I see your hand popped up there.

We do have some of the tools and some of the consensus and the conversations and the will in this room. But our lived experience in the field in many of these places where there are conflicts is that there is not the will by those governments or those de facto authorities. On the contrary, they regard abusing humanitarian law as part of their war strategy. So we can have as much wood as we want and as many tools, but they are not going to use them. We're not going to persuade them through appeal to their better nature to use them. We will have to use pressure and we will have to use stronger tools than encouraging them to use the measures that we've built or the legal frameworks that we can offer from colleagues in this room. And I just think we need to be quite realistic. This is part of the war strategy, indeed the war aim in some places.

Thank you. Ambassador Larson, did you want to say something?

You take the political commitment into something which is practical and delivers on the ground. I completely agree with the comment just made. It's easy to talk about this. It's extraordinarily hard to do. That means we have to try harder. We could fail. But I think you have to sort of really think what are the granular things which who are going to deliver that pressure to conform and comply to the greatest extent possible. And we know the constraints and we know the limitations and so collectively we need to do what we can.

Hisham yeah, very sorry but when Aurelien talked about the armed transfers and one of the means and my team put an example that I didn't want to speak about because but now I will speak about it and it's a good thing. I mean, our Washington team basically worked on different legislative and policy measures related to U.S. armed transfers and civilian harm. And we contributed to the development of a presidential policy called NSM 20 for the ones who want to have more details that conditioned military air aid, armed transfers on facilitating humanitarian aid, amongst other things. So there is a clear conditional response. And this establishment of this new policy resulted in the suspension of major arms sales and transfers for the period of three months. I talk about heavy, heavy weapons and this of course to conflict zones and this automatically you have less means to basically use them on urban areas and then workers could, could be safer. It has well helped to require reporting to Congress on restrictions on Unitarian aid and movements and attacks on neutral personnel and their facility. So it's one of the legislative means that we can use on the bilateral level that could be as well helpful when you condition as well arms transfers and arm aid to basically the protection of humanitarian personnel. This was something that wanted to share linking to what Aurelian was saying. Thank you.

I'll try and be brief, but to speak directly to the question about how do we do that for frontline responders today as soon as possible. Again, I think the conversations about the political will and how we put pressure on these systems is the only way we reduce the harm. It's the only way that we reduce exposure to the harm. But we're not there yet. We're at harm reduction, which is where duty of care is really coming in, which is where ballistic vests and helmets for frontline responders, insurance, mental health and physical. But I think one of the, one of the exports that we're working on now in Ukraine, which again is meant to be anchored in Ukraine because of the resources and the attention, but meant to be exported to all contexts is this idea of a duty of Care Advisory Group. So what that means is we directly connect decision makers and frontline responders and people who are there to identify what duty of care looks like. To your specific context. It'll look very different in Ukraine than it does in Sudan, very different in Sudan than it does in Syria or somewhere else. So coming together, building consensus and then making your job easier by saying, this is exactly what harm reduction looks like, while you have the multi track dialogue and the different components of fundamentally reducing humanitarian exposure.

Thanks, Yomi. Well, it's reassuring that a heavy and difficult question. There's a lot of ideas and a lot of interest in responding. So thanks to everybody for sharing that. And we have a colleague from the United Kingdom. Thank you. Oh, sorry, no, he's calling. That's you. There we go. Yeah. Calling upon the United Kingdom.

Thanks so much to the organizers and to the briefers. The UK is really proud to have co sponsored Security Council Resolution 2730, penned by the Swiss colleagues who are somewhere in the room and be an active participant of the Australian led ministerial group, along with our, our partners here. And I think, as Abby said, there has been momentum, but make no mistake, I think all of us are very aware of the awful circumstances that the humanitarian actors in the room and beyond are working under and navigating and the risks that you're all taking. And so I do want to say on behalf of the UK that we pay tribute to the colleagues that you have lost and we deeply appreciate the work that you're doing under such difficult circumstances. Compliance with IHL protection of civilians, including humanitarian personnel, sits at the very heart of UK foreign policy. And I've heard it's so interesting, if you'll forgive me, I'm going to digress for a second. This is my first time in New York. I'm normally in London for Protection of Civilians week. And it's so interesting because we talk about the lack of political will, but there are, as you say, Aurelian, many member states here today. The Security Council debate, open debate earlier today really emphasized consistently all of the calls to comply with IHL to protect humanitarian personnel. And so I think maybe there is a lot of political will, but I think maybe it demands that we all have to start acting a little bit differently. I think the complexity of the crisis, the nature of warfare, it is changing. The terrible lack of resources that everyone is facing, I think that is demanding that we do things differently. And so I think for the uk, one of the things that UK and many other states here have been talking about is a commitment to use humanitarian diplomacy for protection, for access. And I think that's really important. I think for us, it's really important that we do that in partnership with other states states. It's also really important that we, that we invest in the skills required to do that responsibly so that, so that our colleagues are aware of not only the opportunities that they could seize in terms of hansing protection by engaging diplomatically, but also the risks. And I think that's really important so that we work in partnership with those on the front line. And I think the most important, important thing there is to make sure that we are really informed. We must be informed by the actors that are actually on the front line. And so I suppose I ask all of you, what more can we do to make sure that we are really getting the information that is most necessary to inform our diplomatic action, both publicly and privately. And then I suppose on the other hand, continued investment that can't be understated enough. And I think for the uk, we're really trying to focus on the protective measures that can be shared, the data, the common forum. But I suppose I wonder, and I'm aiming this at you, Yomi, I wonder to what degree all of the shared services are already accessible to the, to the local actors that are on the front line and facing the biggest risks. Are they relevant? Are they accessible to everyone? Or do we still have work to do to improve that and to everyone on the panel? I suppose I'd be interested to know, not only building on my colleague, his question, not only what the priorities are, but where is it that a kind of a lack of, of collaboration between us as donors, whether it's our requirements, our regulations or our interests. Where is that? Where do you need us to come together to collaborate to better fund what you're doing? So many of us are facing limited resources, but where does collaboration, common standards among donors, where could that make a difference? Thank you. Sorry, I chucked a lot of questions in there.

I'll do my best, thanks. I think the way that we've actually engaged, I think, is a good example. I know you were trying to harness information and contextual relevance to a conference that you were going to and you called us and we were able to purport directly to you what some of those main talking points were and where those gaps currently existed. And. And to answer your question about the accessibility is not as much as it needs to be. It's still very much siloed with individual organizations doing tailored response in silo of each other. Not in consortium or in unified approach. So I think the discussion around standardization, around duty of care about self protection strategies really needs to be held. And just as a last point, practically what that looks like is people getting into a room and locking the door for three days and having those conversations. Because that's where the biggest gap is, is because we have strategies but they're not being actioned fast enough. A very small example in from Ukraine is about frequency analyzers or drone detectors. It is a 100% compliant device that fundamentally reduces frontline exposure to drones rather than just reduce reactive protection like vests or armored vehicles. That took a year to get to a place where it was now acceptable in the most place.

Right.

That conversation has now grown forward. But that is I think an example and like a watershed moment for me when understanding that coming together and like diffusing myth about what different protection strategies are and what they are not is where the biggest gap is. And it takes appetite to lean into that uncomfortable new conversation.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to meet my responsibility as a timekeeper and move us along to our closing remarks. So I hope the panelists can remain in the room at least for a few minutes. Afterwards, I feel there's some energy and perhaps more discussion and questions that would like to be asked. I apologize if for everybody else who did not get to ask their question, but I'm now going to turn the floor over to you, Bill Blanchard, who has the very challenging job of director of Field Operations for DSS and the very challenging role to wrap us up.

I was going to say the second is the hardest rich discussion. And first of all, thank you to the panelists, to Abby, Joachim, Hisham, Nick and Aurelia Tiffany for chairing U.S. australia, Canada and Switzerland for helping and others for helping with this overall event. It's impossible to capture all of that. I'll just pick a few key themes that I think came through. First of all, so Abi, thank you for providing us the really sobering data on the state of affairs of protecting humanitarians, the numbers of deaths, of injuries, of kidnaps of and particularly detentions as a growing problem. In other words, we're facing a threat from the host governments and de facto authorities that are supposed to help us. They are the threat. Increasingly. We also heard from the importance of protecting that data and then maintaining those data streams. And again, we've heard from the member state how that can help. We've also heard from Hisham how at the policy level we need support both for practical measures and also for engagement with host government forces, host government security and military forces to ensure better protection of humanitarian personnel. Joachim tackled the challenges of working with security forces and particularly local communities at the front, at the front line. And as we as a system move towards increasing localization, how do we make sure that our security structures also support that increasing localization? But localization is not the only thing that's changing. Conflict is also changing. And just seeing how that's changing with the advent of drones on the one hand, change in host government behavior on the other, but also information warfare and disinformation as a third thing. Importance of listening to frontline responders and to making sure that our frameworks and our system also respond to these changes. And of course, Ukraine is a particular example. But we're also seeing daily the spread of drone warfare to other contexts and increasing use of similar issues. Every context, every context conflict is unique. But there are lessons we can draw. We heard from Aurelian on the challenging question of how we see the targeting and killing of humanitarians despite the political commitments that many member states have made. Often those targeting and killings come from member states. I thought Aurelian made a particularly compelling case for preserving the funding of security in, in a humanitarian and UN context. Thank you. But it really is a question, can we stay and deliver in more and more cases? We are right at the limit of UN's risk appetite. We've expanded that risk appetite in recent years to be able to continue supporting and enabling programming in places like Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan. But we really are very close to it. And there will be times when, and we will have to do less. The cuts that we faced in dss, and I know that's only part of the cuts that everyone's facing, even on the security side, means that we may soon have to make choices between enabling programs or risking people in a way that we haven't had to make before. We made a cut last year of 27% and we tried to make that, that cut in the areas of medium and low risk. This year we're being asked to cut again. We will have to eat into our coverage of high risk and very high risk areas. If that happens. It's not just ess, it's the whole security system. And I think the point that's been made that was made about putting security into humanitarian appeals as a fundamental enabler and building block is really key. There are many donors who can't do that structurally, or they don't consider that or allow that. We need it in there as a building block in the appeals. And honestly, we also need extra budgetary support from individual member states. Finally, Nick reminded us of how accountability can function as a form of protection. The need to protect witnesses, to support legal cases, to be creative about the options for legal action. And so where does this leave us? As a conclusion, what are the things we want and need member states to do? It's clear there's a major accountability gap. We need to move from commitments to concrete action. The Australian led declaration and UNSCR 2730 provide a framework. Now we need to operationalize and implement. We need you as member states to speak out consistently against attacks on humanitarian personnel by any actor. We need you, as been mentioned, to pressure bad actors and use humanitarian diplomacy that both sides of the of the coin. We need to look at new models of security, humanitarian security reset, I suppose. Getting to the front line and making sure that we use our scarce resources in as efficient as way as possible at a time when humanitarian work is localizing. We need accountability through investigations or exposure as well. Exposure, investigations, prosecutions and. And consequences for the regimes, be they states, be they non states, be they de facto authorities. And finally, we need commitments to be backed by political, legal and financial support so that we can protect humanitarian, medical and UN actors who are trying to protect civilians. I think the Joachim's last point about. We need to reduce the harm from bad behavior at the same time as working to reduce the bad behavior. There are two sides. We need to do both. And we've talked about walking the talk and I think talking is really important. Even being locked in a room for three days, it's important. This meeting is important. But it's walking that will save the lives of those who are saving lives.

Lives.

Thank you.

Everybody.