The Humanitarian Reset and Responsible Transitions: Safeguarding Resilience and Principled Action

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, may I please ask you to take your seats. Thank you so much. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, colleagues and friends, good afternoon. I'm Melissa Fleming. I lead the Department for Global Communications here at the United Nations, and it is my honor to welcome you here to this event. It is an important discussion because it's on the humanitarian reset and responsible transitions, safeguarding, resilience and principled action. Today's event is the result of a strong partnership among the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Center, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United Nations Development Program, or UNDP, and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, or OCHA. Our co-hosts today are His Excellency Dr. Abdullah Al-Rabiah, who is the Supervisor General of KS Relief and Advisor to the Royal Court. Her Excellency Ms. Kirsty McNeill, Minister of State for International Development of the United Kingdom. Her Excellency Ms. Hajja Labib, European Commissioner for Preparedness, Crisis Management and Equality. Mr. Alexander Alexander de Crew, administrator of UNDP and Mr. Mohammed Yahya, Assistant Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator for OCHA. That is a mouthful. They all represent a shared commitment to advancing a humanitarian system that is principled, locally led, accountable, and better connected to recovery and resilience. Their collaboration reflects the heart of today's discussion. Humanitarian, development, peace, and financing actors need to work in complement to support nationally led recovery and responsible transitions. I think, as we all know, the world is confronting escalating conflicts, growing displacement, recurring climate shocks, and increasing protracted crises. Humanitarian needs continue to rise, and as you acutely know, they are outpacing available resources. At the same time, the humanitarian system is undergoing one of the most significant transformations in decades through the Humanitarian Reset and the UN80 New Humanitarian Compact. Since its launch in 2025, the Humanitarian Reset has begun reshaping and reimagining how humanitarian action is prioritized, how it is coordinated, how it is financed, and how it is delivered, making the system lighter, faster, more locally led, more accountable, and ultimately more effective for the people it serves. Today, we want to look at what that means in practice. Is the reset delivering better results for people? How do we ensure that humanitarian action remains principled while becoming more efficient and locally led? How do we support transitions that are nationally led, rooted in communities, and sustainable, while ensuring that people who still need humanitarian assistance and protection are not left behind? Ultimately, progress of humanitarian reset will not be measured by new structures, nor will they be measured by new commitments, but what changes. for those people who are in crises, whether assistance and protection reach those at greatest risk faster and also more fairly, whether affected people and local actors have real influence over priorities and decisions, whether transitions strengthen national and local capacity without leaving gaps in humanitarian support. Today, we are fortunate to be joined by leaders who reflect the broad alliance needed to turn this ambition and this vision into impact. And today, we have Arabic and English interpretation. And I'm very pleased to say that the meeting is webcast on UN Web TV, and we have, I'm sure, many people joining us online. So welcome to you as well. With that in mind, let's begin with a broader question, where we go on humanitarian reform next. And Excellency, Dr. Abdullah Al-Rabia, with the humanitarian reset now in implementation, could you tell us which priorities should guide that next phase and how can humanitarian assistance connect more effectively with recovery, resilience, and development?

Thank you, Melissa. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, Let me first start by thanking the co-hosts of this very important event, the United Kingdom, EU, the UN, represented by UNDP and OCHA, and all the respected panelists with me on the table. Today, we gather at a critical moment for the international humanitarian system. where a reform reset is being led by the United Nations and also led by OCHA, in particular with our friend Tom Fletcher and his team. And the priorities are many, but I will try to concentrate on the most important priorities that we, whether we are donors or implementers or NGOs, see important. The first priority is actually to support a stronger coordination and partnership and timely decision making to ensure that assistance reaches those who are in need most. For example, in Saudi Arabia, represented by KS Relief, we have managed in a short time to build very strong partnerships with more than 300 partners who have been very important to be effective with us to reach more than 110 countries. I think these efforts are without coordination, without actually having also the support of resident coordinators, Without also the support of the countries themselves, the host countries, we wouldn't have been able to reach them. And I think that's priority number one for the reform and reset. Secondly, I want to reemphasize the importance of localization and also the national ownership that should be an integral part of any humanitarian efforts. the system should strengthen the capacities of the national and local actors. And we should have a balanced and principled localization that will enhance the humanitarian system and build more resilience. Thirdly, I think I want to emphasize the importance of synergy across the humanitarian development peace nexus. which is very important. I think nowadays it is very crucial that this energy should be implemented to ensure that we only have a rapid response and then leave the countries behind. I think we should move in the process of recovery and development with the support of peace. And we also encourage continued and inclusive management with member states throughout the humanitarian reset process. I think the time of coordination should be donor, United Nations, NGOs, and also local actors. This coordination will enhance the process better. Finally, none of this can be achieved without the right partnership, and that's why I started with partnership and I close with the partnership. We need a stronger collaboration across the member states, the United Nations, local actors, and international organizations. Without this, then our work will be actually contradicting each other. I welcome all the efforts that will enhance the humanitarian system. And also, this is a moment where everyone has the actual obligation to step up share and contribute to future agendas, we hope to see more engagement from all parties, both in the dialogue and also in defining the way forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Excellency, for highlighting this important shift in thinking and also outlining the synergies and the importance of partnerships, which is a good segue to our next speaker. who will look into how we can, who shapes decisions and priorities. One of the central ambitions, Minister McNeil, of the humanitarian reset is to bring decision making and resources closer to affected communities and local actors. How can the system reset ways of working to shift power and decision making so that international actors align behind the local humanitarian ecosystem and affected communities? And are there good practices emerging from the humanitarian reset that can be replicated or drawn on?

Thank you, Melissa. And it's a real pleasure to join so many of you who are driving humanitarian reform. And as you know, humanitarian reform isn't really about structures. It is about power, trust and who gets to make decisions. That is what we heard so clearly at last year's UN general assembly and at the UK's co-hosted global partnerships conference, and we think that that is what today's conversation should be about, too. The humanitarian reset that Tom Fletcher is leading is a chance to fundamentally rethink the balance of power within the humanitarian system. Tom has challenged us with a very straightforward question: what are the things that only we can do and how can we give power away? Ultimately, that is the same question that we are asking ourselves in the UK through devolving power to communities. How can we ensure that every time decisions are made by those who are closest to them? People and organisations closest to crises are not simply recipients of assistance; they are often the first responders. They understand the context best, and they should help to shape the decisions that affect their communities. The challenge before us is not choosing between international and local leadership. It's creating a system where we look at the priorities and capabilities of affected communities first, and then consider how we get behind them. And there are some very practical ways that we can start doing that. First, we need to be much more honest about who is best placed to do what. Because too often, local leadership is treated as an aspiration rather than a starting point. So we should begin by asking what local actors can lead, and then identify where international support is genuinely needed. Second, our coordination structures need to reinforce rather than duplicate national systems. And local actors need a real voice where priorities and resources are decided. There are already encouraging examples, including in Myanmar, where the UN Resident Coordinator reshaped the humanitarian country team to include national partners. Or in Sudan, where the Resident Coordinator has started an independent review of the humanitarian structure. Thirdly, funding is one of the most powerful levers for change. Donors and member states can help accelerate the shift by investing in approaches that strengthen local leadership and preparedness. And that means putting more resources directly behind local leadership, more anticipatory action, investing before crises occur rather than after them, and crucially, trusting communities to make decisions for themselves. Expanding cash assistance can really help here. And the Aid Fund for Syria is a great example. Syrian civil society plays a major role in its governance, and almost 80% of the $105 million in funding awarded between 2022 and 2025 has been directed straight to national and local NGOs. Examples like this prove what's possible, but collectively, we need to go further and faster in resetting our financing. Our aim should be a system in which local leadership is not seen as something separate, but instead it coordinates, funds, plans and delivers humanitarian action. That requires a very different way of working. It means each of us learning to do things differently and, ultimately, ensuring that local communities have more power, more resources and, most importantly of all, more control over the decisions that affect their lives. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister McNeil, about -- thank you for speaking about power and trust and who gets to make the decisions. I think it was really the theme of this General Assembly, if you heard the Secretary-General's opening speech. And so, very aligned. We need to reset the balance of power and devolve it to communities and also trust, trust those local communities and empower them with funding. Localization is ultimately about ensuring that humanitarian action reflects the realities and the priorities of the people it serves. It's also about inclusion, but whose voices and needs shape humanitarian action? Women and girls should remain at the center of humanitarian action. So my next question is to Commissioner Laarbi. Women and girls are often among those most affected by crises. particularly in conflict settings and fragile environments. The humanitarian reset and the UN aid initiative place the rights of women and girls at the center of reform. So given the EU's role as a leading donor and also policymaker, how does the EU promote gender mainstreaming across humanitarian action to ensure that these commitments translate into concrete, accountable outcomes for women and girls?

Thank you. Allow me to answer to your question by sharing with you some conversations and experience that I had on the ground when I visited camps, refugee camps, camps here, and survivor of sexual violence. Some conversations change the way you see a crisis. And I will never forget the one I had in Kinshasa in the Panzi Hospital, where I met survivor of sexual violence with the result, the baby that she hold in her hand, praying God that this baby will be a chance of another life, a hope for the future. This determination in her eyes was heartbreaking, and at the same time, it was really reassuring for a future for all of us. And another conversation, and a very important one, was in El-Fasher camp at the border with Sudan and Chad, where I met survivor again of sexual violence, two girls who asked me, now we are here since three months. We are repeating for maybe the hundred times our story. We want to know how and when we are going to restart school. This is the most important thing for us. And so it changed completely the perception that you have of the crisis and the response as well that you have to give to this crisis. What is clear is that conflict, displacement, and disasters can deepen inequalities that were already there. And too often, of course, women and girls pay the highest price through violence, but also hunger, displacement, and the loss of very basic services. And they remind us that humanitarian aid cannot simply ask what does this community need, but also who is most at risk. who can actually reach the help and is that help safe for them? And it can comes with very practical questions and choices as well, like where do you put a water point or a toilet in a camp, in a displacement camp? It is close enough for women to reach it safely? Is there lighting at night? Do women and girls have menstrual hygiene supplies so they can live with dignity? When food is distributed, can women, children and marginalized people actually get it? And these details can determine whether humanitarian aid protects someone or expose them to more danger. And last year, the European Union provided more than 110 million euros to sexual and reproductive health and for preventing and responding to gender-based violence. And these services are lifesaving, nothing else. So during my mission also, I've seen something else that I would like to share with you. Women and girls are often the sentinels holding their communities together. And I saw that in Colombia and Venezuela as well. Women raising their families, organizing their communities, protecting those most at risk and helping to rebuild what was lost. And they too had that fire in their eyes like the women I met in Adre or in Kinshasa. And that is why the EU works to put women's organization and local actors at part of humanitarian decisions and delivery because local and women-led organization often know first where the gaps are. They know who is being missed. and they can reach people the largest international organizations sometimes cannot. And their role is just as important after the emergency. Women must also be part of the recovery so we don't simply rebuild what existed before, inequality included. So yes, there are obstacles. War and insecurity make people harder to reach. Humanitarian space is shrinking. Funding is under enormous pressure. And too many women-led organizations often lack resources. But with strong political leadership, we can be better. prepared, we can help better women and girls, protecting them and supporting them to rebuild their life. And when we do that, humanitarian action works better for everyone caught in crisis. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner, and thank you also for sharing those evocative stories. I think we all know that human interaction and really knowing the specific needs, as you said, does change our perception, but also how a meaningful response can be devised. And you ended by saying local actors, of course, know first and best, and that really is the theme of today. Friends, humanitarian action alone cannot sustainably reduce needs over time. But recovery, stronger institutions and essential services cannot wait until humanitarian needs have ended. They need to be supported alongside humanitarian action from the outset. So that brings us to the question of responsible transition. And Mr. de Kruif. Responsible transition is becoming an increasingly important part of the humanitarian reform discussion. So what practical measures can help strengthen national and local systems during the transition?

Thank you. Thank you, Melissa. And let me start by thanking the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, thanking KSR, the European Union, United Kingdom, and OCHA for bringing us together. Maybe one observation is, if you look at the humanitarian reset, I mean, the humanitarian reset does not mean that there should be a reduction of the international support. I think the objective of the humanitarian reset is to make sure that, on one hand, yes, we provide the life-saving interventions, but from the start, we also look at what is the pathway towards not just saving lives, but also rebuilding communities. And that is not a sequential thing. Too often, there is a reasoning in saying, well, first you save lives. And there is a moment where you say, now we stop saving lives and we start rebuilding institutions, communities, and so on. That's not how it works, because that moment where you stop doing one and going from the other, that's impossible to determine. And if you start too late at rebuilding institutions and rebuilding the basic services that people need, you're just way, way too, too late. And we need to do, to do both. Now, if you want to do that well, that rebuilding people's futures, if I can call it that way. From our perspective, there's three things that you need. First of all, you need national ownership and local leadership. Secondly, you need financing that follows that logic. And third, you need early investment in economies and in institutions. So maybe let's start with the national ownership and leadership. That's a crucial one, because if you are in a humanitarian environment, Humanitarian organizations have a logic of saying, okay, we take over. Very often they take over because at moments like that, the institutions are weakened and the needs often are way too big for the capacity of the institutions at that moment. If you want to make the transition towards development, we as development organizations, we will say, okay, but development only works well when the leadership and the ownership is taken over by our national partners. From the outset, investing in the capacity of national and local authorities to be ready to take over is one of the first things that we need to do. The logical thing, right? The logical thing is when you are in a crisis, the logical thing is life saving. And I'm not saying that you should not do the life saving. I'm just saying that in parallel, you already need to start strengthening the institutions to be ready to take over. That means also starting the preparation for, for example, local economy to be able to restart, starting to make sure that you have public services that work. And I think that we have two good examples on where that has worked incredibly well. I think one of the examples is in Iraq. In Iraq, at some point, internally displaced people have started to return. In total, 5 million IDPs have returned, almost all of them. There are still a few pockets where you still have difficulties, but big groups have returned. Now, when have they returned? They have returned to our institutions, started to function, and started to deliver the services that people need. That is, healthcare that functions, school that functions, electricity and other utilities that started to function again. And when you have those basics, then you can start rebuilding housing. Then you can start rebuilding the more physical infrastructure that you need. Syria, I think, is, is a good other example, and, and a few months ago, I was there together with, um, with Tom, uh, with Tom Fletcher, and thanks to Kia's relief support, UNDP has, for example, been able to rehab, habilitate, uh, bakeries that serve 1.4 million people. And you might say, how important are bakeries? Well, I think we all can say bakeries are very important because it's one of those elements that shows, you know, life is coming back. And, you know, bakeries provide the basics, but they also provide the sweets from time to time. And even in difficult circumstances, you need things that show that life is coming back. So that is one big chunk that is important in making that transition. The second element is resources. When you have a crisis environment, money does flow in, and that's a good thing. And it's often based on what we see in the news and so on. You could imagine that what happened in Nepal, dramatic events, there's a lot of financing flowing for that. bringing Nepal back to giving everyone a future is going to continue way longer than the news reporting on what has happened. And so what you need to do is you need to integrate the financing into your national development plan. You need to broaden the type of financing. You need to connect to international financial institutions, to regional development banks. You need to bring the private sector in. And we as development organizations, we also need to get the flexibility to be able to have the financing, to be the safe pair of hands that often humanitarian organizations are looking for to be able to take that over. All of the things that I just described, that is what we call the transition support mechanism. And that was really one of the elements that still need to be fleshed out in the humanitarian reset, is how do you actually do that? How do you organize that handover to happen? Not to the ambition to do the work that the humanitarian organizations are doing. They're doing an incredible job, and no one can do it better than them. But the ambition should be from the start to create an environment where you move from humanitarian to development, and that does not go from itself. And so to summary, this is moving from grants to investments. It's moving from projects to investable pipelines. It is growing from responding to building resilience. It is moving from waiting from recovery to investing from day one. And this is really the key element that is needed in finalizing this humanitarian reset. Humanitarian reset, which from our perspective is a success, but needs to connect to development. And that connection needs to happen from day one. Thank you.

Thank Mr. DeCru, for outlining the transition support mechanism in such real language. So not just saving lives, but at the same time investing from the outset in rebuilding communities. So we've heard today about resilience, local leadership, inclusion and transition. And let me now turn to implementation. What is actually changing in practice? Practice, Mr. Yahya, now that the humanitarian reset has moved from commitments into implementation. What has actually changed in practice?

Thank you. Thank you very much. And thank you for all the partners who brought us here together. I think your question, Melissa, was, is the recent delivery results? Are we putting those who need, especially those who in need of urgent services first? Are local organizations getting more decision-making powers and resources? And I think this was raised here. our communities shaping decisions that affect them. So my answer is we are making progress. We're not there yet, and I'll explain some of the things that we need to improve moving forward. But allow me to tell you some of the things that we've seen results in the last 18 months. One, priorities are becoming sharper, decisions have been taken closer to people who we serve, funding is moving earlier, and coordination is simpler. We have reached 66 million people this year alone, with almost two out of three people receiving lifesaving assistance in the most hard-hit areas. By June this year, $10 billion was disbursed, compared to $8 billion the same year this time last year. Local organizations now are in 18 out of 22 pooled fund boards. and I represented in nearly all humanitarian country teams. I've just come from Pakistan. In my, the country team that I chaired, local and international organizations were fully represented, NGOs, local NGOs. This is real progress. I think we should be proud of the success we've achieved, but I think we'll also agree that it's not enough. I've met with local NGOs, I see the leaders of near here and other NGOs, and I think that what we're hearing is things that we need to improve. Some of the challenges that remain are funding is still very rigid, reporting and compliance demands consume too much time and capacity, too much risk is passed to local partners without enough funding to go with it. Our task now is to make the reset real everywhere and at speed and scale required. This brings me to the second part of the discussion around transitions. Funding cuts have forced extraordinary difficult choices for many humanitarian actors, but prioritization cannot simply mean withdrawing and hoping that somebody else fills the gap. So The essence of what we're saying is that budget cuts is not a transition plan. A responsible transition starts early. It's honest about what humanitarian action that remains an essential. And it also looks at national capacity and where that national capacity exists to be able to fill those gaps. I can tell you I served I've had an opportunity to serve on the-- sometimes we have artificial divisions between development and humanitarian action when it comes to work in the field. Transition assumes as though you are in a running-- and I think Alexander pointed out, it's like a relay. You're passing a button. There's no button to pass. Most of the time, both actions happen in the same place and in the same area. So it's really important. I think the word transition sometimes confuses this. It brings a sense that one person is moving out, humanitarian action is completely coming to an end, and the development actors are taking over. So it's just not like that. And many of our UN agencies who are here do both work. So they're not exactly transitioning within their own same organization. So it's really important, I think, we put this, sometimes what seems to be a very difficult discussion, at the center. And we have to be honest because I said I've worked on the development side and to discuss transition and what transition looks like, what are the indicators for drawdown, those discussions haven't been had. And I think it's important these kind of spaces were able to do that. This is why the IIC principal agreed in June to make transition part of our crisis strategy and to test a more focused and structured approach of transition arrangements. The purpose is practical, is to identify what is blocking progress, whether policy, financing, capacity, and operational constraints. And humanitarians must be prepared to step back when needs fall. This is really important. And where others are better placed to lead, and this brings me to the issue of national leadership. It has to be at the center of the response, and especially when humanitarian needs are declining. and development actors must come in. And development partners must engage earlier. And I mentioned in my experience, I've seen that happen, but that is not uniform. There are many places where development actors are nowhere to be seen, and most of the work is done only by humanitarian actors. National leadership must be the center of the set. Member states, therefore, are critical in providing predictable and flexible financing, reducing unnecessary reporting and demands, and bringing development financing in before and after humanitarian capacity draws down. So to answer the question on the reset itself, for us, the direction is clear. We're moving faster than we've done before. And when conditions allow, we are very much ready to engage on the issue of transition and protect the principles which are central to us in every step on how we engage with communities and people we serve. The reset is ultimately about putting the most urgent people first and moving resources closer to those communities we serve and stepping back responsibly when others are ready and best placed to lead. So that's my answer to you, Melissa. It's one that says we've made progress, but we're not there yet. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you for that inspiring and honest reflection of where we are. But it is impressive to hear about the progress that has been made and also just very clearly what needs to happen to succeed to, as you said, make the reset real. So we have heard different perspectives on implementation, local leadership, inclusion, responsible transition, and the partnerships and financing needed to make these things, these changes real. So I'd like to thank our distinguished panel for sharing your thoughts with us. And we will take a short, short pause to invite our next panel to the stage as the others depart. I am going to take this opportunity to start introducing the next panel. So you'll see them up here. I'm pleased to welcome His Excellency Mr. Raed Al-Saleh, Minister of Emergency and Disaster Management of the Syrian Arab Republic. His Excellency Mr. Asmund Grover Aukrust, Minister of International Development of Norway. Mr. Karl Skau, Acting Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer of the World Food Programme; Dr. Issa Faye, Director General for Global Practice and Partnerships of the Islamic Development Bank; and Ms. Hibak Khalfan, Executive Director of the Network for Empowered Aid Response, or NEAR. Please come to the stage. Thank you so much. It was really moving, your story. It's a great way of-- We're still changing the names. So I would ask my colleagues from OCHA to show the distinguished panelists whose nameplate they should sit behind. Thank you. We'll just take a minute to get the corresponding names up. There we go. There we go. Okay, welcome. Welcome, Excellencies and colleagues. Let's begin our discussion with Minister Al-Saleh. Is the Minister there? Thank you. There you are, Minister. In Syria, and I'm sure we're really all, I'm sure, very excited to hear from you. Acute humanitarian needs and recovery priorities are unfolding at the same time. So from your perspective, what does a responsible transition look like in practice? And what are some of the most important forms of international support you need to strengthen national institutions while ensuring there is continued assistance and protection for the people who still need them and the people who are returning.

Thank you, Melissa. I would like to thank all the ministers, advisors who have spoken before me. For Syria, this question is not rhetorical, it is a reality we live every day. I spent many years working in emergency response. In emergencies, the task is clear: save lives, reach people quickly, and respond to urgent needs. Today, however, as a minister, I face a different challenge. How do we help communities move from merely surviving the crisis to recovering from it? For me, A responsible transition begins with a fundamental principle: transition cannot mean withdrawal. It cannot mean that humanitarian funding stops today while we wait for development funding to arrive tomorrow. In Syria, humanitarian needs and recovery needs exist at the same time. People return to their areas to find damaged homes, water networks that do not work, and schools in need of rehabilitation. as well as health services that are limited and job opportunities that are scarce. In some areas, there are also risks from landmines and explosive remnants of war. A returning family does not care whether repairing the water network is classified as humanitarian, recovery, or development. It simply needs water. Hence, a responsible transition requires three things of us. First, We must continue to provide humanitarian assistance and protection wherever the need for them remains. No one should be left behind simply because the international system has decided that a country has moved into a new phase. Second, we must introduce investment in recovery and development much earlier. When we rehabilitate schools, repair water and electricity networks, clear landmines and explosive remnants of war, when we reopen roads and markets and help people restore their livelihoods. By all this, we're not competing with humanitarian action. We are reducing the need for it. Third, international support must focus on strengthening national and local institutions rather than creating permanent parallel systems around them. This means investing in public institutions, municipalities, civil defense, and emergency response systems. as well as the Syrian civil society and local organizations. In this way, capacities will remain in place even after a project or international funding comes to an end. In Syria, we also need funding that reflects this reality, flexible, multi-year, and area-based funding that can accompany communities from the emergency response phase to recovery and then to sustainable development. 14 years after the revolution in Syria, our ambition cannot be merely to manage dependence on humanitarian assistance more efficiently. Rather, our ambition must be to reduce that dependence responsibly. We must continue to help those who need support today, while investing in institutions, infrastructure, and livelihoods, so that fewer people will need humanitarian assistance tomorrow. For me, that is what a responsible transition means. I thank you.

Thank you, Minister. Your remarks reinforce that sustainable recovery ultimately depends on national ownership, and that must be matched by long-term development engagement. Let me now turn to the role of development partners in supporting national leadership while humanitarian needs remain acute? Minister, development actors have a critical role to play in reducing humanitarian needs over time. How can development investments come in earlier and more strategically, strengthen resilience while humanitarian needs remain acute?

Thank you. And I think that's a very good question that we need to remind each other of, because we live in a world where there are so many places in our time that are burning at the same time. And especially in these days, it's important to keep focus on also the big picture and what we can do to avoid new humanitarian catastrophes. Development actors have a critical role in this and we cannot leave this to the humanitarian actors alone. My main answer is that we need to think the long perspective alongside with the humanitarian response, not after the humanitarian response is over. We need to be predictable and we need to have it led locally. We in the New Zealand Government, we are now forming our new white paper on development, and a core message here will be to bring humanitarian, development and peace efforts closely together. It addresses not only the immediate needs, but underlying drivers of risk, conflict and fragility. So a few points. The first one, we need to invest while the needs are still acute. Investing in prevention, resilience and early action is very often far more cost effective than responding after a crisis has escalated. Let me take one concrete example. In Gaza, Norway is funding the rebuilding parts of the water system through our friends and partners in the UNDP. It is considered early recovery rather than humanitarian aid, but it is more efficient and cheaper than water trucking. Norway is a proud supporter of FAO's SF It enables early intervention that help farmers protect their crops, livestock, and livelihoods, reducing the impact of food crisis before they worsen. So this is part of all our thinking through our partners, both in the UN and in the World Bank. Point number two, strategic, we need to be more strategic. We need to take honest choices and shared responsibility. The humanitarian reset must deliver better outcomes for people, not simply smaller institutions. As funding declines, we must all make the best out of those available resources, while we at the same time are upholding the principles and norms that make humanitarian action effective. Norway's support systems assist the system that force resources and those that are facing the most diverse need in support a system that focus resources on those facing the most severe needs while preserving protection, humanitarian diplomacy and access. A change requires also more donor engagement. We as donor partners have a big responsibility to provide not only high number of funding, but also quality funding, which is predictable and flexible. Point number three, it needs to be locally led. We are strong supporter of taking more of the decisions as close to the location as possible. Decisions should be guided by local needs and priorities. Here, we also need to protect those that are most vulnerable, and we know that many women and girls are most affected by conflicts, and their voice should have a central role in the response. point, my last point, is that we need to see all these reforms together. The humanitarian reform, the UN reform, the reform of the development architecture, and also of the development banks. They must move together. We support strong leadership by resident coordinators and humanitarian coordinators and more joint effort across the humanitarian, development and peace sectors. Let me lastly say that we must also remind each other what is the purpose of all these reforms. The purpose is not greater efficiency, but it is reduced humanitarian needs over time. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Thank you for outlining your position, which I think is very, it echoes a lot of what has been said before by UNDP, invest where the needs are still more acute, and everyone is saying we need to be more strategic We love more donor engagement and locally led is a theme. Thank you so much for those important remarks. Let me now turn to one area where humanitarian action, resilience, and development meet very directly, and that is food security. Mr. Skow, from WFP's perspective, what lessons could help us better connect emergency food assistance with more resilient food systems and longer-term food security? and also at the same time ensuring that acute needs continue to be met.

Thank you, Melissa. And colleagues, as we meet here today, we have record levels of global hunger. Last year, we saw two confirmed famines. This year, we have risk of famine in four contexts. This is historic. It's driven by conflict, mainly, but we also now see that disruptions to maritime trade is pushing up hunger, and so is these extreme weather events with El Nino around corner that we are really fearing. Compounding this is the lack of respect for international humanitarian law, and so that our workers are not safe, we are not reaching those on the front lines, but of course also the deep cuts to our resources. We certainly need more resources, and we certainly need respect for IHL, as we have been discussing this week, but we as humanitarians, the development agencies, also need to do our work differently. I think number one is our focus on prevention. You know, we have now technologies, satellite imagery, AI that can help us detect when these extreme weather events hit, where they hit, and exactly who they are going to impact. And so that allows us to act early in anticipatory action, put cash into the hands of people so they can move out of harm's way. And by doing so, we save a lot in terms of suffering in lives, but also money in the response after. But second is really to link humanitarian assistance to resilience, to development. And like UNICEF, an agency that works both on humanitarian and development, we are well placed before, during and after crisis hit. Our new strategic plan at WFP has this at the center. Resilience is really at the center of everything we do. And it's about recovery, of course. You know, we do. some food assistance when it's necessary in El Obeid today, when in Sudan, when displaced are arriving, they need hot meals, they need food. But as soon as possible, like in Khartoum, where people are returning, we move to cash so we can support markets to come back. We do our local procurement in Sudan even because to support farmers in the stable areas of Sudan. And so that is kind of the emergence trajectory, if you will. But as soon as possible, we need to move beyond that. You know, recovering like you and the P spoke about, is something we've done for decades in Afghanistan, in Gaza, in Ukraine, in Syria. We also work in supporting retailers. In Gaza today, retailers that we used to work with before the war, we are now supporting them to be able to reestablish their business so that we can move to cash and so that we can start building a domestic food system in Gaza. And also farmers, of course. Getting farmers back on their lands is critical. We do that in Sudan now. promoting, helping them with some basic irrigation system. We do so on the front lines in Ukraine, helping them also to demine their land. So this is really, you know, about recovery while there is also a humanitarian crisis ongoing. But as we do this, we need to also strengthen systems for the future to make them more resilient. Lebanon is a great example where we worked with the World Bank to transfer our cash programs that started off with Syrian refugees and then also was expanded to vulnerable host communities. We worked with the World Bank to strengthen the national capacities in Lebanon together with UNICEF so that we had a social protection system that could sustain shock. So when the war started earlier this year, the government systems were able to scale up cash support to over 1 million affected Lebanese in the first few weeks. And this, I think, is an example of what we would like to do also in Syria now, working with the Ministry of Social Affairs to strengthen their social protection system, so to help recover, but also to be ready for shocks in the future. A third element to be doing business differently is really to focus on joint outcome, and I think that's really the spirit of the of the reset. This is not about individual agencies. The challenge is way too big for anyone to take on. We need to work together. We need to focus on how we can get the work done. And I think the proposal or the initiative rather than a proposal on a joint supply chain capacity that UNICEF and ourselves have put on the table is such an example of where we join capacities to gain efficiencies and really to get more impact for the resources we have available. Thank you, Melissa.

Thanks so much, Carl, for outlining how WFP is linking humanitarian assistance to development and doing it at the same time with resilience at the center. So as we've heard from throughout today's discussion, ambitions are important, but they can be achieved only if financing flows. So, Dr. Fay, financing is critical to responsible transition. What innovations are needed to financing arrangements so that recovery and resilience financing can come in earlier, while adequate humanitarian financing remains in place wherever acute needs persist?

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Excellencies, colleagues, and valued partners. It is a privilege to be here on behalf of Islamic Development Bank. I thank Case Relief, the United Kingdom, the European Union, UNDP and UNHCR for convening this conversation. Before answering the question, just to put things in perspective, saying that humanitarian needs are at the record level of availability of resources. The 2026 global humanitarian overview estimated that 252 million people are in need of assistance. And at the same time, the financial resources are moving away from humanitarian. And the financing gap is daunting, and the resources are full at a record level, never seen before. So this is the paradox we're living in. the issues are there and becoming more and more daunting while we don't have resources. So we need to innovate that. We need to find new ways of getting the resources to flow where they most need it because they are no longer there. ODA is waddling down, 23% decrease in 2025. So what can we do? We need to find new mechanism, new ways of channeling the resources through the financial engineering. At the Islamic Development Bank, we're trying to leverage Islamic finance because this is part of the solution. We tend to forget Islamic finance is part of the financial system and has value-based, asset-based, and can really help finance these things. So how do we do this? We have three main windows, actually, now that we are approaching. We have a new concessional finance window that was launched earlier this year. It is a dedicated mechanism that expands high concessional financing to our least developed member countries and to vulnerable communities affected by fragility, conflict, and economic shocks. The second group is what we call the facility, the 3R facility. It is the response, recovery, and resilience facility, fully grant-based and disbursed, again, pre-agreed triggers within days. So recovery financing can move the moment the conditions on the ground allows it, not months later, once a crisis has been formally classified. So we provide emergency response. when shocks hit and humanitarian channels continue wherever acute needs persist. They don't stop. And then recovery kicks in. Recovery happens and doesn't have to wait its turn behind humanitarian. The two can run in a symbiotically manner or synergistically. The Fund has already drawn approximately 300 million US dollars in commitments from partners including ICRC, Islamic Relief USA, IICO, and Al-Nuri Society. The third window is how do we finance the humanitarian by leveraging Islamic finance that I mentioned earlier. Our Global Islamic Fund for Refugees established with the UNHCR and a growing family of waqf-based instruments are both structured as endowment. The capital is preserved in perpetuity and only the returns are spent on protecting displacement and acute needs. Because the capital is never drawn down, it keeps generating humanitarian financing year after year, without competing against the very recovery capital that same crisis will eventually need. These instruments are already at work on the ground. In Gaza, we are investing in health system recovery through the Khaled Al Hassan Cancer Hospital project, alongside continued emergency food assistance delivered by CARES Relief and the World Food Programme. Our skills training and education programme is supporting more than 1 million refugees, IDPs and host communities across 15 member countries. And our refugee education programme has opened higher education pathways for over 17,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Turkey. In Sudan and the neighboring host countries of Chad, Egypt, Libya, ICDB and the Global Islamic Fund for Refugees have come together to support displaced population as well. Now, while we're going through those innovation, there is four consideration that we need to keep in mind. Innovative financing should be judged by how well it moves people out of humanitarian dependency, not only by the amount of dollars that we mobilize, but how are we changing the system, how are we changing the outcome is most important. Second, anticipatory action deserves to become the default, not the exception. Pre-agreed arrangement, financing triggers ahead of shocks, backed by early warning system and pre-agreed response plan and localization are important. Third, we must finance the transition, not the emergency. Humanitarian and development financing should be connected and structured around the calibrated triggers so that a caseload can move from humanitarian to development financing on agreed terms, instead of falling into the gap between the two systems. A crisis-affected family should not have to wait for the international system to redesign itself at every stage. Fourth, the private sector is part and parcel of the solution. It should not be an afterthought. What it needs most is de-risking, guarantees, insurance-linked mechanism, credit enhancement, and blended finance. I would conclude by saying that no single institution can close the financing gap of this scale. We invite Case Relief, the United Kingdom, the European Union, UNDP, OCHA, and all around this room to work with us to deliver on humanitarian and development nexus. The Islamic Development Bank remains committed to standing with our most fragile member countries, not only when a crisis breaks, but through recovery and into lasting resilience. with humanitarian support that never has to step aside for it to begin. That is the partnership we bring to the humanitarian reset. With that, I thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Fay, and thank you for, you know, at a time when the financing gap, in your words, is daunting and the resources are missing, thanks for outlining how you are innovating to leverage humanitarian development financing strategically. I'm now going to hand the floor to Ms. Kalfan. Today's conversation has repeatedly emphasized local ownership and community leadership. From your perspective, what is the single most important change international actors need to make so that local actors and affected communities have real influence and become genuine partners in decision making rather than just beneficiaries of the decisions made elsewhere?

Thank you, Melissa, and thank you to the co-hosts. I think that we all heard today that there's no silver bullet. There were three, I think, main points that we heard, power dynamics from the UK, national systems improving from the minister in Syria, and resources shifting. For those who are new to NEAR, we're a network of global South network of over 400 organizations across 46 countries in Africa, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Last year, our members invested a lot of effort into shaping the humanitarian reset with the limited time that local actors have in engaging the national conversations, regional, and of course, global conversations. We invested this time because the aspirations of the reset seem to justify it. A system that is locally led and globally supported is one we have been asking for for a very long time. In 2025, we called for the reset to achieve a key shift, move funding and decision making to local leaders. We welcomed Undersecretary General Fletcher's commitment to channel more funding to local NGOs. We also asked for clear frameworks to track progress on shifting power and resources to local actors. To answer your question, Madam Moderator, this remains the key change we need. It hasn't changed. It's moving funding and decision making to local leaders and co-creating with us the measurable framework to track progress towards this goal. Many aspects that Mohammed had mentioned in the earlier panel. As I said before, the call is not new. Local leaders have asked for this during the 2011 transformative agenda. We asked for it 10 years ago at the World Humanitarian Summit. We asked for it again at the Flagship Initiative of 2023. And those are just a few efforts in which we continuously ask for very similar things. And the ask remains. To get us there this time, there are actually three conditions that are necessary for this to be successful. The first is international actors should focus on the functions they are uniquely placed to perform, which we've heard a few today. But to add to that, protect norms, convene, provide technical expertise, and temporary surge capacity. Otherwise, step back and give space to local ecosystems. The second is around investing in possible responsible transitions. I heard about the transitions. There are two types of transitions. There is the humanitarian to development transition, but there's also the international to local transition. And I think that's an important aspect that we need to recognize in places like we heard in Iraq, in Syria, in Indonesia, in Somalia. The third is strengthen local systems of response instead of assuming an international architecture must be built. and then asking local actors to participate, start by asking how the existing local ecosystems can lead and what you can do to support it. This is really how we believe that reset becomes an opportunity to finally deliver on what we have all been saying and what we want to achieve for the many years, a humanitarian system that is locally led. Thank you.

I would like to thank Ms. Kalfun for outlining those valuable conditions to close us off on this panel. So if I may ask our distinguished speakers to one more round of applause to all of them. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to be starting with interventions from the floor. We are unfortunately nearing the end of our time. May I ask, as the other panelists go back to their seats in the floor, His Excellency Dr. Abdullah Al-Rabia to return to the podium. So we're now going to open the floor to interventions from member states and partners. Unfortunately, there is another 30, I am told. So I am also told that if you do have an intervention prepared, that it would be-- that the organizers here would love to receive those in writing if we don't get to you. I'm going to start with his Excellency, Mr. Neil Richmond of Ireland, who is the Minister for International Development.

Thank you very much, Chair. In the interests of fairness, I am going to submit the pre-written remarks to the secretariat, but I want to make two or three very brief points that I think are timely. As everyone has said, and I do not want to overly repeat what has been said, we are at a time of acute crisis. The needs are getting more and more every minute that passes, every day that passes. As Carl said, we are on the verge of moving from two man-made famines to four. At that time, the entire infrastructure is being questioned. The response has, of course, been to hyper-prioritise, however, that does mean that some needs will not be met. That gives us a real ethical challenge, as well as everything else. That is why it is so important when we discuss the humanitarian reset that not only is it about being more efficient, but it is also about being more focused on being locally led, sustainable and that we really put people at the heart. As part of that, we invest even more in resilience, in early warning systems and the entire holistic approach. That is why the Government of Ireland is committed to ensuring our humanitarian funding partnerships are focused on on saving lives, but also to work better to anticipate crisis, invest in those systems and build resilience. We are committed to that anticipatory action. To conclude, our humanitarian policy will continue to be rooted in the needs of local communities and committed to making the changes necessary to adapt to this new difficult environment. That is why we really look forward to working with all of you, but ask you to even more consider how much more you can do financially as well as politically. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. And I would now like to give the floor to the distinguished representative of Germany.

Co-hosts, Excellencies, thank you so much for bringing us together today for this important meeting. As one of the largest donors to the humanitarian system, Germany has been a strong supporter of the ongoing humanitarian reform under the Humanitarian Reset, as well as the UNHCR Humanitarian Compact. Responsible ways of transition are an essential ingredient for successful reforms. Transition is an integral element to enable an efficient, well-functioning humanitarian system. We need a process where the exit of humanitarian action is planned, well-prepared, jointly funded, and politically accountable. At the same time, humanitarian action must remain principles and needs-based. As has been stated before, our goal must be to move from a logic of exiting to a logic of transitioning, ensuring that essential services like healthcare and protection do not simply come to an end, but are handed over to sustainable long-term structures in a steered and predictable process. Furthermore, we need strong leadership on the ground. The Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator needs to be the central actor of bridging the gap between humanitarian and development systems. We must empower the RCHC to lead transition efforts that align humanitarian priorities with development planning and involve national governments and IFIs from the start. We also need to strengthen our support to local and national actors. As local as possible and as international as necessary should be our motto. Finally, we must address the financing gap. Transition requires compatible funding, a bridge that ensures humanitarian assistance can be aligned with operational sustainable systems. In this regard, it is key to incentivize development actors and IFIs to engage in fragile contexts. We stand ready as Germany to support the process politically but also take responsibility as a donor to support joint ambitions through funding decisions to enable a more sustainable and effective humanitarian system. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Germany. And I would now like to ask the distinguished representative of Turkey, the Director General for International Political Organizations.

In view of time, I will shorten my intervention. Also, I would like to thank all the sponsors for convening this important meeting. And we also support the UN 80 initiative, the humanitarian reset, and the new humanitarian compact work stream. We really think that we can work towards a more effective structure overall. Because the diagnostic is stark, we have a humanitarian system which is overburdened, underfunded and too fragmented. shorten the humanitarian needs and response plans, simplify coordination structures, align action with local capacities. We also would like to point out that pooled procurement for relief items could also be very helpful. And in this regard, in Turkey, we have many UN humanitarian organizations, including OCHA, OIM, WFP, which benefit from their host country agreements. And Turkey stands ready to help them facilitate further procurement procedures on the Turkish territory. Mandate overlap remains a persistent issue. We know that we are all working, the UN is working in this regard, and we commend IOM and UNHCR for their efforts to reach a shared understanding on their roles, and we need to address the same problem across all institutions. Perhaps an approach similar to the UNHCR-IOM framework could help resolve overlapping mandates. So in conclusion, I would like just to remind that Turkey stands ready to contribute to the transformation of the humanitarian system, including through our own experience hosting UN humanitarian operations, and we look forward to working with all the partners in this room. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Turkey, and I would now like to ask the distinguished representative of Brazil to take the floor.

Thank you. Brazil is deeply concerned by the unprecedented humanitarian financing crisis facing the international community today. While needs remain extraordinarily high, available resources continue to decline, particularly flexible and unmarked funding, which is essential for timely and effective humanitarian action. current crisis requires renewed international solidarity and a stronger commitment from all Member States, particularly those with greater financial capacity and longstanding responsibilities in supporting the international humanitarian system. We take note of the reform processes currently underway across the humanitarian system, including the UNHAT initiative and the humanitarian reset. Brazil welcomes efforts but is concerned that humanitarian actors are forced to choose which vulnerable populations will receive life-saving assistance and which will not for lack of funds. The humanitarian financing gap cannot be closed through efficiency gains alone. Efforts to streamline operations should not become merely a cost-cutting exercise that risks undermining operational capacity and the delivery of protection and assistance to affected populations. The international community must renew its commitment to providing adequate, predictable, and flexible resources. In this context, Brazil underscores that the burden of humanitarian crises cannot be simply shifted onto host countries of refugees, many of which are themselves developing nations facing significant social and economic challenges. Responsibility sharing must remain a fundamental principle of international cooperation. We are glad to hear of the new and creative tools available and therefore call for a renewed partnership between traditional donors, emerging partners, international financial institutions, and other stakeholders based on solidarity, shared responsibility, and the collective objective of protecting human life and dignity. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil. Unfortunately, we have time for only one last speaker, and I really, really apologize. Those who didn't get a chance to speak, please do submit your statement in writing. I would like to ask the representative of Geneva Call, Mr. Abdi Ismail Issa, to take the floor. We're time, apologies. What? I'm sorry.

We were on the list. Apologies.

Oh, you need more time. Okay. Thank you very much. Then we will end it there. We did have a real distinguished group of speakers. I really thank you all for your enthusiasm. I would just like now to recognize, before I hand over to His Excellency Dr. Abdullah Ab Rabea for his closing remarks, the special guests of OCHA who are attending this event. USG Fletcher and ASG Yaha have brought together six local NGO leaders to this year's GA, where they have joined senior leadership in a number of events and meetings. bringing those on the front lines inside the room with key decision and policy makers at the highest levels and to put those who are at the forefront of humanitarian response in the conversations where their decisions are being made. I would like to recognize them and invite them to stand and be acknowledged. Please stand and be acknowledged. Thank you. It's so great to have you here. Thank you very much. And it is now my pleasure to invite His Excellency, Dr. Alrabeia of King Salman Center to deliver closing remarks on behalf of the co-host. Thank you.

Thank you, Melissa. And I know you are tired and jet lagged, so I'll try to be quick and brief. First of all, I think we all agree, all the participants who have highly appreciated agreed that the reset and the reform that the United Nations has shouldered, led by Tom Fletcher, that is well supported by all participants. And I think my takeaway, and I think what most of the speakers addressed, is when there is a crisis, the first priority for the reset is trying to prevent those crises, and that's where humanitarian diplomacy and the political will stand. And should there be a crisis, I think the needs assessment should be evidence-based and science-based so that we get accurate data. Also, planning is a very important when we are going in a reset priorities, also the priorities should be as we have here, the neutral, based on ethics, so that we do not deny people and need their rights to live or get the right health. I think all of us agree that coordination and avoiding duplication is a necessity. All of us has stressed the importance of localization, not only in aid delivery, but also capacity building and transformation is very important. I think you have to engage all parties, including donors, UN implementers, and local NGOs. Funding is a challenge, and we encourage all funders and non-funders to be engaged more in the future. And we should not forget the private sector and the industry in that regard. Trust and transparency is very important in the reform and reset. Also, we should not forget the importance of logistics that is efficient and cost contained in its transformation with very rapid responsive implementation that goes in line with it. Peace is the way to go and for peace to happen when there is a rapid response, we should not forget the nexus and for the nexus to work, whether it is for the rapid response, the relief efforts, recovery or also development. Without peace, you cannot do it. And if we put our hands together and have peace, then by all means, recovery and development starts from day one and early in the response with the support of, as we have heard from the ministers, investment, financing, and I should not forget innovation. And lastly, AI should be used to be positive and should not be used on the negative side to destroy people, but to improve their life. Thank you.

Thank you so much for those closing words. Thank you, everyone, for being here and being so actively engaged. so much.