87 Million Lives: Delivering on the Promise

Les pathologies qui sont vraiment plus dominantes sur ce site, c'est le paludisme, les infections respiratoires aiguës et la diarrhée. Si nous n'avons pas le financement, il pourrait y avoir des pertes de vies humaines.

Tout autour s'est effondré. Ici, nous dormons avec les enfants.

My message to the world is to ensure sustained financial support, collective action, stronger action to tackle all these challenges that these people are facing.

There we go. Right, before you all start talking again, let's get underway. Welcome, everyone. These are the 87 -- some of the 87 million lives that we want to reach, that we are already reaching this year with lifesaving support. A huge welcome today. We have, I think, two big objectives in the next hour. Number one, to leave everyone feeling that they are part of something extraordinary and brave and really, really difficult. And that's why we're doing it, because it matters. And secondly, to get you out of here ahead of time, because we've all had enough meetings already and it's only day one. So we're going to try and accelerate through this. I want to welcome Hajjah and Sjoerd as co-hosts. Iman Safadi is entering the building as we speak. And so we'll welcome him in just a moment. Can I also welcome our extraordinary local leaders? Do you want to stand up, the local leaders team who have joined us? Here we are. These are the heroes and heroines of the effort, and we'll be hearing from them later on. They are co-leading our humanitarian delegation this week. We're doing it because we believe in what they do. Now, very quick, some stats before we get going. We're making some progress. We've mobilized, and it's mainly the people in this room, in fact, it may be all the people in this room, about 14 billion. dollars so far for this campaign. And of course, we never wanted to have to prioritize like this. We hate having to make these choices. But if we have to start somewhere, we're starting with those hardest to reach in severity four and five. And so already, that means we've reached 40 million people so far this year with some form of lifesaving support. And everyone in here has been part of that effort, and it's an extraordinary effort, an effort of courage and creativity. 65 million people have received some form of assistance this year. But anyone still counting the numbers, you'll see that leaves us 9 billion short of even the hyper-prioritized target we're trying to reach, let alone the money we need to raise to reach the over 200 million other people in need. And we all know what that means. Clinics closing. Excellency, welcome. I'm man, my friend. Welcome. Ahlan wa sahlan. Good to see you. Welcome. So that does leave us a gap in the people we're trying to reach and a gap in the funding. And it's not just, of course, about the money. We have a mission this week, and I need help from everyone here to get the 10 access agreements in place. And if I haven't ambushed you with one of my cards yet, I will come and find you later. If we get these 10 agreements in place this week, then we can reach 11 million people that we can't currently reach, from DRC to Yemen to Haiti to Colombia to Afghanistan, South Sudan, OPT, Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen, and beyond. And so we need your diplomatic support as well as your support for this campaign. Now, last couple of slides on some stats. We want to also recognize those who are giving most generously. In fact, more than that, we want you to start competing with each other, frankly. which is why I've had some slides made that show where the money is currently coming from for this campaign. So this one is the quantity, the overall quantity. And come and find these slides later if you want to see them closer up. If you can't see your country on there-- well, I hope your country is on there. If it's not, then you know what to do. But this one-- have we got the next one? This is effort. So this is what our generous donors are giving to the humanitarian family and to the plan put together by over 2,000 humanitarian organizations by the size of their economy. So there you see a different group of colleagues and friends can step forward and take a bow there. One thing, one huge change in the course of the year now, one big shift in the system is that now 25% of funding is going through pooled funds. And that allows us, of course, to get funding out to the front lines, to the local organizations, or indeed to the partner best placed to deliver, whether that's a UN agency or an INGO or a local NGO or another organization. So this then shows you what each donor is giving in terms of pooled funds. And then, and I think we're almost there on the slides, the generosity is not just measured in dollars. So we also want to show you countries who are most generous in terms of hosting refugees, and so therefore are probably the most generous donors of all. And I've turned around to look at His Excellency Eiman Safadi, because you see Jordan is at the top of that league table. And when you look at refugee-hosting countries relative to their economy, we have a surprising result, because it shows different forms of leadership. It's not all about the cash, although to those with lots of cash, we like that as well. It shows that there are different ways of stepping forward as part of this effort to save 87 million lives this year. That's more than enough from me. We want this to be a quick-fire conversation over the next hour. So we are going to be asking for swift, top-level interventions, and we're going to be asking some of the difficult questions. I've been in eight meetings at least so far, and in every single one, we've agreed on everything. And that is not the measure of success of our conversation today. We also have to lean into the areas where we might not agree on everything. I'll stop there and hand over to our friend and colleague, Aman Safadi.

Thank you so much, Tom. Thank you all for being here, and thank you for organizing this event. I think I'm just looking at the program at the UN, and I see a lot of focus on international humanitarian law and the need to do more for refugees. And I think that speaks to a growing awareness that there is a huge challenge there, that there is a problem. So it is very, very important that we're recognizing the problem, but I think the question is, how do we deal with it? What can we do together? And I think what you said really speaks to a plan that should be followed in order for us to be able to move forward. Dear friends, humanitarian aid cannot be seen as a charity. It is a moral obligation. It's a duty. It's a responsibility towards people who have been victimized by conflict, victimized by natural phenomena, victimized by war, and we cannot victimize them again by failing them, by not shouldering our moral and ethical responsibility towards them. So we must act. And I think the first principle upon which we must act, or the first step, is to recognize that by investing in those people in need, we are investing in a better future for all of us. Because I think the past few years have shown beyond doubt that whatever happens in one region does have multiplying effect on other regions of the world. We in Jordan speak from experience. As you mentioned, Tom, we have for decades dealt with the challenge of refugees, with the largest per capita host of refugees in the world. And yes, there is pressure, and yes, there is challenges that you're going to have to deal with. How are you going to provide education? How are you going to provide food? How are you going to provide opportunity? But most importantly, how are you going to provide hope? And because abandon those people to need, to hunger, to ignorance, and... they're not going to be productive members of the community in which they exist. And if and when they go back to their countries, they will be a burden rather than contributing to the development of their countries. And of course, when you have despair, when you have anger, when you have complete loss of hope, radicalism is out there to prey on that. So it is an investment not just in humanity, but also it's an investment in security, in progress, in development. And that is something that we need to focus on. Problem is, when it comes to people in need, particularly the refugees, at the beginning, everybody comes in. Everybody wants to contribute. Everybody wants to do their bit. But then the next crisis happens, and it's forgotten. And it has happened once and twice and over and over again. And we feel that in Jordan, the funding to our response plan at the beginning of, for instance, the Syrian refugees was substantial. It did help us in a very meaningful way in providing a dignified life to the refugees. We look at it now, it's in single digits almost, which means the burden has shifted on us. We will do everything we can to help, but alone we cannot do it. Had it not been for all of us coming together we will not have been able to provide refugees with the dignified life that they deserve. Again, it's not charity, it's a right for them. Now we're facing a dilemma. UN organizations, as a result of funding shortages, are cutting their programs of support for those people. We're not pushing them to go back because we are fully committed to the principle of voluntary return. So how are we going to provide for them? We have 110,000 Syrian kids, for instance, in our schools. And again, we were able to provide a classroom for all of them because we all came together, left to our own resources, given the challenges that our economy is facing as a result of the political environment in the region, security environment, that's going to be a burden. I can tell you in Jordan, His Majesty's clear commitment is to doing everything we can to ensure that those people continue to be treated as fellow human beings and get the dignity that they deserve. But we need to come together to do that. So I think, again, when it comes to refugees, there's been some sort of a moral contract between donors and host countries that both do what they need to do to support those people. If donor countries do not honor that part of the contract, then it is unfair, to say the least, for host countries to carry the burden. So we have to look at that in a in the sense of comprehensive joint responsibility to do so. Plus, everything we do must be anchored in international law, in international humanitarian law. We spoke this morning at a decision that our colleagues were so kind to organize. And we all spoke of the fact that there is selectivity in the application of international law, that we're not using the tools that international law avails for us to be able to take action against those who violate international law. And that's why, as I said earlier this morning, the world is normalizing the violation of international law. And that is criminal, to be honest. So we have to act. International law, international humanitarian law are sufficient. What is insufficient is our reaction to violations. We make some shy statements here and there, but we're not taking action. Those who violate international law must be held accountable, period. Other than that, we're not going to be able to move forward and address this challenge. And I say that as I look at the situation in Gaza now. Again, look at Gaza now, one year into the ceasefire, Two million people are squeezed in 30% of Gaza in an area that cannot sustain life. Hospitals are not functioning. Food is not getting in the quantities that people are needing. Again, UN organizations are pointing that there are severe hunger and severe malnutrition among the people. 700,000-plus kids are not getting any form of formal education. Why? Because Israel is saying no. Aid is there, as I said earlier. Some of you who-- I mean, again, most of you are partners with us in providing aid. Aid is expiring on shelves because Israel is saying you're not allowed to send aid into Gaza. So aid is available. Why are people suffering? Because one country is preventing them from their right to food, to education, to health, to sanitation, to all of that. What do we do about that? Israel must be held accountable. Otherwise, those people are going to suffer. And once you kill hope, what kind of future are we going to look at going forward? And what we saw in Gaza is unfortunately happening in the West Bank, not at the same level of hunger, but if we don't act, we're getting there. I remember Schools in Jerusalem, church schools in Jerusalem, were closed for days because Israel did not allow teachers to come in. Checkpoints, food is not coming in, settlements, annexation of land, all are violations of international law and international humanitarian law. Why is Israel doing it? Simply because the world has not acted. The world has not used the tools it has, legal tools, political tools. available to be able to say, enough is enough, you cannot take the future of millions of people hostage to either ideology or political interest, and you cannot violate international law and get away with it. But unfortunately, that is what's happened. And that's why we need to act. That's why we need to go beyond just condemning what's going on. We need to take action. We have the tools for taking action. The Security Council can take action. Countries can take actions. EU can take actions. Global groupings can take action. Send the message, at least, that this is not acceptable. And if I may just to divert a little bit, Tom, Israel is going into elections now. What kind of message do we need to send to the Israeli people? One key message should come from us in the region. that don't believe the radicals who tell you that your neighbors want to go to war with you and destroy you. On the contrary, what we want is a future of peace predicated on the realization of the Palestinian people's right to freedom and statehood, so that that Palestinian state would live side by side and Israel that's secure and accepted. That message needs to come to us, and it has been coming from us for decades, from the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The other message needs to come from our partners in the international community that the actions of your government are having consequences. And that can be expressed by tangible measures, trade sanctions, embargo on the sales of arms, and holding Israeli ministers who day in and out dehumanize Palestinians accountable for what they do. Because Failure to deliver, normalizing with the inhumane conditions that some countries force on people, begins with dehumanizing the other. Once you start dehumanizing, as has been the case vis-a-vis Palestinians by mainstream government officials in Israel, People normalize with that. That cannot stand. And therefore, again, I thank you so much for this initiative. I know you have a list that you're going to give to everybody. I'm waiting to get my copy of it. But again, if we act together, if we act collectively together, if we act on the basis of our shared human values, our shared commitment to international humanitarian law, we can make a difference. And we should make a difference, because if we do not, we all are going to pay a price. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Aymen. Thank you, Aymen. And the first session which Jared will moderate will be on the defense of international humanitarian law. But first, over to Hajer.

Thank you, Tom. And yes, it's good to see so many familiar faces. And I think that we are all from the same family. We are all confronted with the same reality when we are on the ground, 250 million people in need. I know that you like the figure, your preferred one, 87 million people. But by the way, it's only one in three million people that we are-- one in three that we are going to reach, even if we reach your goal, dear Tom. And the EU is playing a major role in humanitarian funding. I think that I know that there is a competition here between us, but so far this year, we have provided nearly one-third of global humanitarian funding. And What is sure is that this responsibility cannot continue to fall on a small group of donors. We need a larger donor base, stronger partnership also with international financial institution, the private sector, the philanthropy. I know that we are going to have an important dinner tomorrow. Also, inaction has a real cost. This cost is human, it's political, it's economic, and it leads to destabilization, massive displacement of people, more conflict. There are 130 conflicts worldwide, and these conflicts are causing 70% of the humanitarian needs. So the first urgency, I would say, is to stop these wars and to respect international humanitarian law. And it goes with responsibility and accountability. And I've been I couldn't enter, by the way, in Gaza. I tried hard. We were forced to close our ECHO office over there. And yes, we rely completely on you, our UN stakeholders. I have to say that I'm quite exhausted to repeat constantly that civilians, aid workers must be respected. Humanitarian access must be fast and unimpeded. And we also need to do our own homework to make humanitarian system more efficient, more accountable, and responsive to people in need. And that means, of course, better coordination, less duplication, and a stronger role for local actors. It's a shift of power. We all know that it's not easy. And allow me to end by saying, our work is really all about people, people like you and me, people who don't like to depend on someone else just to survive the crisis, just to survive their daily life, and just because they were born maybe in a certain part of the world. So please, let's work together to make the world a fairer and a better place to live. Thank you. Thank you, Tom.

Thank you, Hajan. Thank you so much, Hajan. And so we now move into the quickfire rounds, really, and we'll look at the four Ds as part of the humanitarian reset, starting with defend, the defense of the values, the principles of international humanitarian law, but then also looking at define, the prioritization work that we've done as over 2,000 organizations, and I pay huge tribute to everyone who's been part of that prioritization work. Devolve, we'll talk about the challenges and obstacles, the reason why we want to put local leadership and that shift of power that Hajer described at the heart of what we do. And then, as Hajer also highlighted, deliver. How we do this more efficiently. Where are the obstacles to us doing this as efficiently as we can? And to take us through each of those, we have a different moderator, including from across the ISC. I can see Dina, who's also our host. Thank you, Dina, for hosting us. And Yanti will do one of those sessions, but I can't see Yanti, but I know she'll be here. Wonderful, thank God you're there, Yanti. But Syed is going to kick us off on defend.

Well, thank you. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Aman. Thank you, Hajja. No, I think it's working, no? Yeah, the mic is working. I could always use two mics. It makes things easier. But defend. I promised Red Cross workers that I met in Nabatieh in Lebanon, and I also promised aid workers in Gaza and frontline humanitarians in Ukraine that I would bring one of their stories here. And that's the story that the emblem that they wear, whether it's the Red Cross or the Red Crescent or the Blue Helmet, no longer serves to protect them, but paints them as a target. And of course, that means that the laws of the jungle are slowly or perhaps rapidly encroaching upon all of us. So I'm not sure if defend, I don't want to take away your nice alliteration of the four Ds. I don't think we should be defending, I think we should be on the offensive, to be honest. And to be on the offensive means that we need to speak out, because norms and laws, they die in silence. We also need to be consistent, because if you speak out in one situation and not in the other, people will call you out and you will aid impunity. And lastly, and then I'll turn over to our good people here, We also need accountability. And we, as the Netherlands, we sponsor a lot of investigations, evidence gathering, but sometimes I wonder if we do right by this. And what I mean is that if you have all the evidence right in front of you and nothing happens, you're only adding insult to injury. So accountability needs to mean, to actually mean something. Now, this is a problem, and of course, I have a great table here with people who might or might not, but I'm sure will have at least some solutions to the dilemmas that we face when it comes to defending international humanitarian law and promoting humanitarian law. And I wanted to start off with Neil, if I can. Neil from Ireland, a great champion of international humanitarian law. What can member states and donors do more to be more effective in defending what we hold dear?

Yeah, thanks so much, Jord. And I think this is the great obviousness of this event. We don't need to do anything new. We actually just need to stick by what years and years of hard work, painstaking work, delivered, not only in terms of humanitarian law, but the basic norms of how civilians should be treated in conflict, in conflict zones and crisis zones. And unfortunately, 2025 was the deadliest year on record for humanitarian workers. Like if that doesn't stop us in the tracks, the very people who put themselves into danger, the very people who are prepared to risk their lives and their livelihoods for very little pay, and we know they could look for more, and Tom's working on that, they are putting themselves in harm's way and they're becoming targets. And we have a choice. Many of us signed a declaration initiated by our Australian friends last year, Sunday last year, but what's happened in the year since? Humanitarian workers are still being obstructed in their job, they're still being restricted access, and they're still becoming targets. So do we say that's terrible and feel sorry for ourselves and come back a year later and still say it's really bad? Or do we actually, like you say, do a bit more than speak out? Myself and the Commissioner will be hosting a conference on the protection of humanitarian workers in Brussels in October under our presidency of the Council of the EU. But it has to be so much more than a conference. It has to be a pushback that we cannot accept this absolute descent into chaos and bloodthirsty targeting that unfortunately is just becoming the norm of conflict and crisis.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Neil. Perhaps Alexander. Yeah. Great initiative to look forward to in October. Perhaps Alexander, investing in resilience, governance, how can that contribute to the better protection of civilians?

Yeah, so first of all, congratulations to the four of you for really leading this effort. And we saw 87 million people facing life-threatening needs. And as being said, international humanitarian law is at the core of this. And defending this is paramount, but it's a start. The next step is as important. It's rebuilding lives. It's saving lives, but then afterwards, it's rebuilding lives. It's rebuilding futures. Rebuilding futures happens when you do the next step. That means restoring institutions. And restoring institutions shouldn't wait until the end of the process. I mean, having a legal system that functions, even in a situation of crisis, it's so important. I mean, we had the Minister of Justice of Lebanon was here a few weeks ago, and he said, "Please, UNDP, continue doing your justice reforms that you are doing. We know that you have many needs, but we don't want to stop this." And that applies to legal institutions, That applies to housing, that applies to schools, even in those life-threatening moments. From the start, we need to not only save lives, but rebuild future. And rebuilding futures need to happen from the start. And that is why the 87 million on which you focus, I mean, we want to make sure that those 87 million in five years time, they're not still the same ones. We want to get out of that cycle of being in dependency. We want to get out of this. And if you can only get out of this, if humanitarian organizations such as yours and Tom, you're doing an incredible job to get at your partners. partner up with development organizations. And I'm happy to see our friends from IOM is here, UNFPA is here, many friends from the development pillar. We're not here to take over your job, but you're here to make it stronger and more impactful. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anton, UNHCR, from your perspective, preventing displacement and protecting refugees, what should be done?

Yes, indeed. I mean, UNHCR is about protecting and offering solutions for refugee. But that protection, actually, when it comes with humanitarian assistance, is probably too late. What we need is the peace, is the rule of law, the respect for international humanitarian law. According to ICRC, there are 130 conflicts worldwide. It is double the number that we had just 15 years ago. And I mean, this was described. We see hunger used as a weapon. We see humanitarian access obstructed, entire populations that are cut off from food, water, medical care. Look, in the case of UNHCR, we see refugees do not flee because international humanitarian law is absent. They flee because it is actually not respected. And that is why compliance with IHL must be regarded not just as a legal obligation, a moral obligation, I would say, but also a cornerstone of preventing displacement and creating conditions for durable solutions. Actually, it is a way for us to deliver our work. If we are able to reach this 87 million, we need to have access. We need to be-- our people need to be safe and need to be able to reach those in need. And actually, it's a way of improving effectiveness and efficiency as well. If we want an effective humanitarian system, we need to be able to do our work. But the expressions of support for IHL are no longer enough. We need to move from commitment to implementation. And I think-- sorry to say that-- that rests a lot with our member states. They must ensure that military doctrine, training, operational planning, accountability mechanisms are grounded on IHL. And when things happen, bad things happen, we need to ensure that there is accountability. Fortunately, there are things happening, and the Global Initiative to Galvanize Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law and the forthcoming high-level meeting to uphold humanity in war offer important opportunity. And from UNHCR, we're happy that there is a focus on protecting civilians, safeguarding humanitarian and medical personnel, and addressing emerging challenges in modern warfare. And that would be my last point. Because conflicts are evolving, we are seeing autonomous systems, artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, armed drones. But the principles need to be the same. Technology changed the nature of warfare, but it cannot change the rules. Human judgment, accountability, compliance with IHL must remain at the center. And this is something concerning Sudan, so many other places where we are seeing this actually not happening.

Thank you, Daniela. Vice Minister from Colombia, what lessons can we learn from your country's journey to peace when it comes to the protection of civilians and the upholding of international humanitarian law?

Thank you, and thank you for having us here. Colombia's experience has taught us that respect for international humanitarian law is a legal obligation and helps preserve pathways towards peace. Its implementation reduces human suffering, protects essential services, and helps preserve the social fabric, as we have all mentioned here. But protecting civilians also requires legitimate state presence, the rule of law, and strong national and local capacities. Where institutions are weak or absent, civilians are more exposed to armed groups, forced displacement, recruitment, and other forms of violence. So peace must be grounded in accountability and concrete, verifiable commitments. We have found that dialogue alone cannot protect civilians if violence continues on the ground. Those who genuinely seek peace must translate commitments into action by ending violence against civilians, respecting international humanitarian law, and moving toward legality and accountability. Facilitating humanitarian access and clarifying the fate of missing persons can reduce suffering and support reconciliation. Third, we find that respect for international humanitarian law must be upheld by all parties to armed conflict. Protecting civilians, humanitarian personnel, and humanitarian operations is an obligation that cannot depend on political considerations. And at the same time, humanitarian action must remain neutral, impartial, and independent so that assistance can reach those who need it most. Finally, Colombia has learned that international cooperation is most effective when it strengthens national institutions and local capacities rather than replacing them. International partners, including OCHA, can support coordination, humanitarian access, and civilian protection while reinforcing the ability of states and communities to prevent, respond to, and recover from crisis. Through the Global Initiative to Galvanize Political Commitment to IHL, Colombia reaffirms its commitment to strengthening respect for IHL and protecting civilians worldwide. Thank you.

Thank you. Christian, from CEO from LACMEF Cameroon, perhaps from your perspective on how the challenges humanitarian workers are facing on the ground and what you feel donors, organizations can do better to help them do their job.

Thank you very much. Coming from the front line, at work, it's not a choice. It's a responsibility. And that responsibility comes with the dare need to serve. And in front of every one of us from the front line is the mountain of access and the risk that we face as humanitarian. We think this risk is not natural. It's manmade, is a failure to reinforce what we all agreed should be. applicable when humanity faces those challenging situations. Access and the protection of humanitarians for us on the front line requires collective engagement. And that access and the protection of humanitarian workers means, therefore, that funding humanitarian work needs to be holistic. And so the risk we face even more is mixed communication from any party to any conflict, because when that happens, it challenges exactly who we are and puts us on the line. So I think when we fund humanitarian action, we must emphasize that humanitarian aid is delivered by humanitarian workers, and they need to be protected to be able to deliver services. We've heard So many times people talk about access, which at times is referred to the risk that we face as a reason for not funding certain conflicts, certain crises, especially the crisis in the northwest and the southwest regions of Cameroon and Cameroon as a whole. No, we cannot negotiate access when we don't have services to deliver. And when service delivery breaks down because of the lack of means, Even communities that help us in the negotiation get frustrated and increases the risk on the humanitarian workers like us. So my plea will be to understand that 27% is only 27% of the required funding in Cameroon that has been secured as of today. Behind the 73% unmet funding lies millions of persons, children who cannot go to school, women who cannot feed and take care of their families. And therefore, the call, the 87 million, also, as somebody said, it's a tiny fraction of what is really needed on the ground. Let us not use access and the risk we face as a justification to not achieve the figures we want here. we will stay alive as we do the work. And, of course, it's a collective effort. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And finally, last but certainly not least, Amr, Vice Minister from Egypt. Perhaps I'm going to ask you the same question that I asked Neil from Ireland. What can states do more, if you hear these stories, to better uphold international humanitarian law.

Well, thank you. I'm pleased to participate in this event at a time where the humanitarian system is facing profound challenges to its ability to translate international solidarity into meaningful support and action for those people who are in need on the ground. I will identify four points as a requirement to uphold humanitarian leadership. First, finance. Financing remains indispensable. We need to address the widening gap between humanitarian needs and available resources. At the same time, financing has to be more predictable, flexible, and multi-year, particularly for protected crises where short-term responses are insufficient. Second, access. Funding cannot be substitute to humanitarian access. Reaching those people who are most in need requires safe, sustained, and unhindered and unimpeded humanitarian access. Humanitarian personnel and facilities has to be protected as well. Third is protection. Actually, protection must remain at the center of humanitarian response. Civilians must be protected from violence and violations. And at the same time, humanitarian workers must be able as well to carry out their duties and to be protected as well. This will lead me to the point of accountability. We need actually to do more to ensure accountability for violations of international humanitarian law and strengthen efforts to prevent further sufferings. force, the fourth point, which is we need to see how we can rethink assistance could be better delivered. And here this will lead me to think about the need to have a greater interaction with local and national actors on the ground and to give them much more ownership in the implementation. Finally, I think we need as well to address the issue of the nexus between humanitarian, peacebuilding, and development. And this will be a very important element in order to break the cycle and really to stop working on humanitarian and to move to an exit strategy and to work more on development and recovery. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. And I think the call to action is clear. We need to do a lot more to uphold international humanitarian law to make sure that aid workers can actually do their job. And I think, I was just thinking, Tom, because you were showing all these figures of people, you know, donating money and how we're donating money, but perhaps we should also be having this yearly statistic of how many people, how many international humanitarian law violators we hold accountable. Because at this point in time, the number is close to zero. And we need to get to 100%. And perhaps we should be tracking it, and perhaps we should be working together and actually dealing with those violations. Thanks very much.

Thank you, thank you, Sir, and thank you, colleagues, in. have to also recognize how good it is to have a development minister who has a humanitarian background himself in Sudan and elsewhere, and you can feel the passion for what we do. We're going to move now to the next D, which is around define. And this is probably, at least in terms of my e-mail inbox, the most controversial part of the humanitarian reset. As I said earlier on, the process of prioritization is really rough, and all of us are kept awake at night by it, and we're not going to get it right. So in this next part of the conversation, with the help of colleagues here, and I'm going to start with Dr. Riviere, I want us to think about where the challenges of prioritization are and how we can improve the way we're doing it. And we're better to start than with a former medical doctor who knows a bit about triage. Dr. Riviere. Try that one.

Thank you, Tom. I think -- Thank you, Tom. You hear me now? Okay. Yes. Thank you, Tom. Let me start by first of all thanking you personally for the reform, for this initiative, for the 87 million prioritization plan, which Saudi Arabia supports, and I'm glad that we are part of the picture that you have showed earlier, and so that we believe in both commitment, we believe in coordination, we believe in localization, we believe in access, prevention, all of it. But let me take you to my medicine, since you introduced me in medicine. I was taught in medicine when I was young -- and I'm still young, Tom -- that prevention is the way to cure mass population. You have to prevent an accident, a disease, obesity, smoking, you name it. And that's why the ministries of health in countries will invest in prevention. So I would probably say that the fairest definition is prevention. Now, after prevention, I think We will go to the plan, how to plan, which you have actually indicated very well, and then we prepare and proceed. But that's easier done, and that will take us from the four Ds to the four Ps: prevent, plan, prepare, and proceed, which is another addition to your four Ds. Now, going now in the action and implementation, I think the process with the limited resources becomes very challenging. Now with the existing many conflicts, now there is no access, violation, targeting, and you name it. And unless we prevent that and put a stop to it, and we have heard enough of this, I don't want to repeat it, that's not going to go. No, and then I'll take you to a story from the Rohingya camp back in 2018, I visited the camp. And actually, I went to one of the refugee camps, barely a camp, barely a shelter, nothing in it. And there was a woman, blind, with three children. So I asked her a question, ma'am, I'm coming from Saudi Arabia, what do you need? And she lifted her hand, and she said, I am the happiest person on earth. Look at her priority. I said, "Why?" She said, "My husband and two children were burned in front of me." So they were killed in front of her, and for her to escape and have three children left for her to support her is her priority number one. So that's where the human dignity is, and that's where our challenge is. If we don't protect a woman like this, then we are not doing well. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Oduye. Okay, Amy. I mean, it doesn't say this on my card, but a lot of humanitarian data is a complete mess. You've been thinking about how we sort this out across the ISC, but also across UNAT, and you've been leading a lot of the work on this. how do we sort out our data?

Okay, so first of all, it's all about the data, right? If you go into a humanitarian crisis, the humanitarian coordinator actually has no clear picture of what's happening, right? I've done disaster response in the United States. We always have a common operating picture where everybody feeds in and you know what's happening and you see who has capacity, you see where the problems are, and then the coordinator can figure out where do we allocate the resources that are needed. Right now, our humanitarian coordinators basically get an Excel sheet from one agency and maybe they'll get a bit of data from another one and they'll maybe get an anecdote from another. That's not a way to run a crisis response. Right? So number one, we need to find ways to bring our data together. And I think actually with AI, there are some good opportunities, even if our data is not completely interoperable now, to connect it so we have a common operating picture. Second, I actually think there are some opportunities that we can take advantage of. We'll need some investments. Take satellite imagery. Right now, satellite imagery can read a flow of people much faster than any human could do. It'll take us a week to read the imagery to understand what's happening. Satellites can tell us within hours, within minutes of where people are moving and where we need to put our resources. So getting that investment in that AI capacity, but then I'm going to put a little cautionary note here, because there are pretty big gaps in the way AI now works, right? It's great if you're an American or European, not so great if you live in Ethiopia, Sudan, Yemen, all the places we work. So we still need people, and we need our folks to bring their good judgment, but bring their judgment to a common data picture so that we can interpret it in the most effective, most efficient ways.

So, Ute, now this is one where I think a lot of humanitarians in the room will listen very carefully to the answer to this question, because we've talked a lot about how humanitarians need to reset, be more efficient, more effective, more prioritized. How can donors do a donor reset?

Thanks so much. Well, Well, first of all, I must say that I still trust that we are doing something in a right way anyway, so we will not change everything, but of course, of course, we also, we have to really get our forces together and see what we really prioritize. But let me say a few words on this defined issue, and of course, first of all, thank you so much for organizing this event, which is hugely important, and I hope that we... We all learned a lot tonight. So as Finland, we, of course, we firmly support the UN-coordinated humanitarian system and its unwavering dedication to save the lives of those most in need. And the humanitarian reset has focused a lot on efficiency. And as you said, so that keeps you awake and many others maybe as well. But we have no other option but to be more efficient. But we also must sharpen our focus on the quality of aid. So it is not only about the amount, but also the quality of aid on people in the most vulnerable situations. Dollars used per person assisted cannot be our only metric. But we must keep the principle of impartiality of needs-based assistance in mind. And we, as Finland, welcome very much the UN's longstanding investment in evidence-based decision making in humanitarian assistance. And through the reset, the focus on data, as we heard, operational realities, and analysis has even sharpened. So we also thank you for communicating about data openly. In planning and executing life saving assistance, it is also crucial to consider how assistance impacts those most vulnerable, such as persons with disability and gender equality. We welcome the decisions to allocate. funds from CERF to deliver life-saving services to women and girls and to disability inclusion. In addition to our core funding to CERF, Finland is preparing to allocate 2 million euros for disability inclusion, and we encourage also others to do so. Every human being's life-saving needs require more than shelter and food. Finland warmly supports that life-saving aid in the most severe humanitarian crisis also includes education to children. Attending school can give children a sense of normalcy in stressful and life-threatening situations. School meal programs help to ensure that children receive nutritious food. Education equips children with tools for everyday life, thus uplifting every child and contributing to more resilient and stable societies. And to conclude, Finland calls for a renewed commitment to upholding international humanitarian law and its faithful interpretation to reach those most in need. We all need to hold the line for principled humanitarian action. Thanks.

Thank you. So, Joaquin, I want to come to another of the most controversial aspects of what we're doing at the moment through the reset, which is this worry that we all have, and Alexandra articulated it earlier on, that that bridge from the humanitarian emergency response to development is fraying. And as we are forced to prioritize more towards lifesaving work, that we're not doing enough, therefore, to ensure that the early recovery, the resilience, and ultimately development is being set up in the right way. It's something, one of the many things that keeps me awake at night. How can we get better at doing this?

Thank you. Good afternoon. Well, I'm not Joaquin. Joaquin had to leave. Oh, sorry. Sorry, but I'm general director for Europe, so I'm updated with these issues, sadly, because I had to coordinate the European response due to the twin earthquakes in my country. So, yes, I am Well, first of all, very thankful on behalf of my country to OCHA and ECHO for all the help that we coordinated together. It was a swift response that demonstrated that humanitarian aid, in order to be effective, need to be timely and well-coordinated with the inside authorities. So of course, today, our challenges are constantly evolving. helping during the humanitarian crisis is not only, uh, respond, uh, quick, but, uh, after that comes rebuild, uh, and assist the affected population. In our, uh, case, we do have a huge challenge ahead, um, not only rebuilding, uh, houses. but rebuilding an entire city, and also providing the right social aid to the affected population. For us, recovery cannot mean leaving humanitarian needs behind. While homes and infrastructure are rebuilt, people must continue to have access to education, health, essential services, water, electricity, and in some, dignity. This require, of course, careful manage transition, preserving humanitarian assistance, while progressively strengthening recovery, reconstruction, resilience, and national capacities. Therefore, we believe strongly in international cooperation. We are continuing to rebuild the bridges with every country in the world. We are very, very grateful. We received aid from more than 20 countries in just 70 hours. We received almost 1,000 persons that arrived to our country in order to help. tons, hundreds of tons of humanitarian aid. So thank you again.

Thank you very much.

And perhaps to say something which will be very controversial, particularly to humanitarian fundraisers, but Venezuela is a great example now of one of the hyper-prioritized campaigns which is well-funded. Now, of course, we all want more funding for the needs that go beyond that immediate hyper-prioritized plan, but actually the ask right now is for development funding for Venezuela. If you're making a choice, that is where, and I may lose my job for saying this, direct it towards the development actors right now, because that's where the needs are. our greatest. Finally, on this table, DNA, we're coming to you. How do we get over this every year? We're going to be back here next year saying, we need to reach this number of million people. We have this much money. We're this much short. Please help us. How do we get past this sort of incremental approach to what we do?

We need more money. We need more money. We need money because people are dying. for all life-saving activities, they need to happen now. We need to stop pretending that health protection and dignity are two separate things. I think for me, that's absolutely critical. And in this time where there is lack of resources, that's absolutely critical for me. The second thing that is very critical, for women, they don't stop having babies because it's war or because it's conflict or because we have a earthquake, et cetera. They still continue to live. So it is important that those lifesaving activity and that continuum can happen. And to make a link with what Alexander said a little bit, the continuum for development is As well, people are the foundation of future generation. So some countries today suffer so much that their future generation are at risk because women cannot deliver in the safest place. So results are important. But my question, Tom, would be for all of us, what if the service we deliver today together were not existing? What would happen for any given country? Thank you.

Thank you, D&O. Thank you very much. And thank you to this table for some brilliant contributions there that really highlight the challenge of prioritization. And unless enormous amounts of money suddenly appears from nowhere, we're going to have to carry on making these incredibly tough decisions. And so we want to make sure we're working together to do that in a principled way and really getting to where the needs are greatest. Let me come on to another issue that's been difficult this year and we haven't always got right, which is devolve. How can we really ensure that we are walking the talk on shifting not just resources, but genuine power, Yanti, towards our front lines?

Over to you. So it's 2026, I think the Grand Bargain is precisely a decade behind us. And there were a couple of commitments we made in the Grand Bargain, particularly around localization and locally led. It was interesting to read the latest State of Humanitarian Systems report by ALNAP that came out only a few weeks ago. where it was very clear in what way there has been some delivery on the grand bargain, but also how, where, essentially, the pace has been glacial. And I think we can all agree that on localization in particular, we've seen that lack of pace and determination. The ALNAP report also calls out evidence-based interventions and modalities that have proven to work and be very effective and efficient. Let me call out a few. The use of cash as a modality, anticipatory action, so prevention to come back to the doctor here, prepositioning of stocks, very pragmatic and practical. building local capacity, and data and tech to come back to Amy's point around how do we use data tools. Now, what we see also is that although these things are evidence-based and have proven to work, they are more disinvested than other elements, particularly over the course of the last 18 to 24 months. So that is interesting observation. So the bits that seem to work best get less money. local capacity to call that out, and I will get to my friends here at the table. In the Grand Bargain, the Grand Bargain promise was 25% of funding. Now, that was just one element, one KPI to measure localization. That's not the whole thing, of course. It's also about power, responsibility, and resource allocation. But it is an indicator, 25%. In the ALNAP report, it stands at 4.3. This is shocking. you know, indication of the fact that we agree these things at summits and then we write big statements, but we don't actually do it. And this is man-made. So I'd love to hear from a couple of people here. We have Sami Khader, director of Man Development Center in OPT, a great longstanding operational agency on the ground and a great partner for Save as well. Sami, so what is the most frustrating obstacle to you to genuine locally led development and humanitarian action?

Thank you. Actually, let's go back to the word Humanitarian World Summit that was done in 2016. So 10 years passed, and still we are talking about localization. There is progress happened, but is it sufficient? I think it's not, till now. The figures shows that 25, and sometimes in Palestine, this last year, it reached 38 percent. 34%, and in '24 reached 38% between national and international NGOs. Actually, localization means, according to the definition, shifting resources, power, and decision-making authority from the international actors to the national ones. Is this happening? Until now, there are a lot of debate on this, and there are a lot of obstacles, actually, and I'll talk frankly about some of the obstacles from our experience for the last three decades in Palestine. First of all, the imbalance of power. There is imbalance of power between the national and international actors. There is not enough trust about this. The second important thing is that the risk transfer. There is no risk sharing. We are, as national NGOs, we are responsible for all the risks that comes from the external environment, from the occupation, from the killing, from the and all the confiscation of lands, confiscating our properties, and killing our people. As man, we lost 29 persons during this war in Gaza, 29 persons who were killed, and we should be responsible for all the risks that comes from the external. This is not fair. The third thing is the There is no capacity building component to develop the capacities of the NGOs. We need to develop the capacities. If you need a strong organization, you have to build their capacity, you have to build their systems to be able to deliver, uh, and, uh, services, quality services and accountable, uh, services to the people. Also, the competition. I have to mention that there is, till now, severe competition between the national organization and the international organization. Some international NGOs, and I think the majority of them, they believe that they should do the work as enabler and not implementing agencies. But we also face that many international NGOs, they are act acting to replace the Palestinian NGOs or the national NGOs or to compete with them. So we need to move from competition to complementarity role between the two players, the main players. And also, there is an issue here regarding the complexity of the compliance requirements in the HF. There are a lot of things to be asked by the national organization to fulfill. And this is an exhausting task that we have to fill and we have to fulfill every time that we have a new project, we have to do due diligence, we have to do micro assessment, we have to do spot check, and all these things. This will limit the participation and the engagement of the CBOs and the small NGOs. This is why you feel that you have few numbers of NGOs that are able to meet the requirements of this system. We need this system to be simplified. to be simplified so to give access and to give a space to the CPOs. And also, we have another issue that we feel that it's important to consider that there is, uh, that localization is still a ter- a terminology that is fake. Everybody is, uh, uh, defining this, uh, term in, at his own. So we need to define and we need to develop trackers, you know, how we can track the localization in numbers, in monitoring what is happening on the ground. The other thing that also we feel that there is resistance from some international NGOs especially during the war, during the last 1,083 days of suffering in Gaza. There are new NGOs, new NGOs that comes and they are working directly, implementing directly all the activities and competing on the same resources. So the competition is severe. And we have to cope with these things. The question, are the NGOs, the national NGOs able to lead? Yes, we are able to lead. And we are looking for a real equal partnership with international NGOs and not to replace anybody. We want your knowledge, your experience. We need to exchange information. And this is how we can build partnership. So we are looking for real partnership, and also the donors, we are asking the donors also not to have and to support short-term projects, six months, five months, and every time you have to run behind writing another proposal and going in the whole process. Let's talk about one year, two years, multi-year year projects that can serve. And also, I request from our UN agencies to have one unified process. So if you are asking the national NGOs to do due diligence, the results should be applied to all UN agencies, and not every time we have to go into this exercise. The same with micro assessment. The micro assessment takes a lot of time from the national NGOs. So I believe that building partnership, equal partnership, simplifying the system, giving space to the CBOs and other NGOs, I think in this we can meet the real requirements and the real needs of our people. Thank you.

That was a wonderful and practical, and surely it doesn't sound like rocket science either. Peter Lauren, the Hilton Foundation, one of the leading philanthropic supporters of humanitarian responses worldwide, has been for years. How do you see the role of local actors having evolved and evolving even more? What investments are most critical today to make sure those local organizations can actually lead sustainable responses tomorrow?

Thank you, Yanti. And the third part is, how can you all get involved? As Dr. Sami said, we're not there yet. All right? In the past decade since the World Humanitarian Summit, we've seen an increase in rhetoric about the involvement of local organizations and local leaders in humanitarian fora, but it has not shifted finances, nor the quality of available dollars. and has yet to bring about any significant change in power dynamics. 2024, only $49 million went to refugee-led organizations, according to research conducted by the Overseas Development Institute. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the $4.7 billion that went to UN refugee response in that year, let alone the $13 billion that we're talking about in this room. And when we talk about the refugee-led organizations that have been funded, the grants are small. The average size of a grant is about $35,000, compared to $320,000 to a UN organization doing similar work. In the United States, if we compared this to women's and men's pay for equal work, we would have a scandal. Things have not improved because of the recent changes in the humanitarian system, so that's where we are now. Why does this matter? Okay, first of all, we cannot afford to sideline refugee-led organizations. They play an essential role in the refugee response. They're first-line responders. They're trusted by their communities, and therefore they have access where others do not. They're providing services that they know match the real needs of people on the ground. From Kampala to Bogota, we at the Hilton Foundation have seen refugee-led organizations step in to fill gaps left by a scaled-back international system. Because when everyone else leaves, the refugee-led organizations are still there. They're doing this on shoestring budgets and with the help of volunteers. If we want to see the real promise of refugee-led organizations, long-lasting impact for refugees and host communities, we need to properly resource them. OK, third part, it's not so hard. We have tried to do this at the Hilton Foundation ourselves. We started from a basis in our international grant making in general of about 15% going to local organizations in 2019. Today, we're at 35%, and our refugee program is at 60%. And we did a whole of org reorganization for this and a collaboration. You can do it as well. If a small, relatively small foundation in California can do this, the UN humanitarian system can do it. If we really want to move the needle, there are three things that we recommend. First, multi-year flexible funds directly into the hands of refugee-led organizations intermediaries, not only from my peers in philanthropy, but from many government donors who have committed to localizing their funding. Budget and staffing cuts are no excuse. Rather, they make the situation more imperative, and they give you the deal you're looking for. Second, fix the plumbing. Okay, we need to invest in improving registration pathways and pull funding mechanisms so that money reaches refugee led organizations directly not through layers of subcontracts that pass on all the risks and none of the overhead coverage and the Hilton Foundation I'll go on record as saying we would be happy to underwrite the thinking of how you might do that so that we can help this move along. And third, moving refugee leaders from consultation to governance, onto boards and into strategy as co-designers of the response, not just recipients of the aid. And the bottom line is, the next decade of refugee response is going to be locally led, whether we fund it that way or not. The only question is whether refugee-led organizations are resourced to lead it well, driving towards real and lasting change for refugees and local communities around the world. Please join us.

Very good, Peter, from the not so small foundation, I think, in California. And I heard a deal on the table there because I heard the word underwrite. So maybe I will break the rules a little bit and pivot to one of the larger donors in the room, Melinda Bohannon for the Department of Development here, the UK, third largest donor in absolute terms. You've heard the obstacles, you've heard some of Peter's solutions, what they've actually done over the last years is actually really impressive. How can donors genuinely incentivize this power shift?

Thank you. And I can be brief because I very much agree with the two previous speakers. So I think from the donor perspective, or from actually it's the Foreign Office perspective, localization is very easy to say but really hard to do. It's very easy to say because the evidence is so clear that it is correct, it's more effective, it reaches local need more effectively, and there are organizations who have the capacity to channel the resources and to make a real difference. So why is it so hard to do? Well, the first reason is it takes a lot of time to build the relationships of trust and empower those relationships, and to convince and convince again politicians who are making decisions about resources that that's going to work. It involves giving up power, and everyone likes power. I challenge all of us in this room to think about that. I mean, it certainly has been for all of us in the UK a conscious choice about how to devolve it and when to devolve it and how. It does involve taking more risk if you're reporting to your MPs about where the money's gone and you're working through local systems that perhaps have less capacity than you're used to. And let's face it, it involves making very tough choices. Who knows who the most effective local actor is going to be on the ground? There are so many. And for what it's worth, I would include some international NGOs in that list. They are themselves often very localized. They have chosen to localize their offices and work through local power brokers. So easy to say, really hard to do. How does one go about it? I mean, I think the first thing is to recognize those challenges, to make long-term choices at country level about the partners that you work with to build their capacity over time, to trust them. It doesn't only have to be non-government organizations. It can be local research organizations, local universities, schools, hospitals. These are all relationships that you have to think about extremely carefully as you're thinking about your end goals in terms of what you're trying to finance and who you're trying to reach. Recently in the Nepal floods, for example, the reason we were able to switch our response so quickly, the 5 million pounds, was because we'd built up trusted relationships over time with local researchers, local NGOs, and local actors, and we could do it very quickly. Had we not been on the ground investing in those relationships, that would have been a lot harder. Other ways, I think there is a role for you and pooled funds. Tom, I know you've been championing this to really skip out or miss out rather the middleman or the middle person where we can so we can get to local actors. I think we all have a responsibility as the donor community to get behind you in that endeavor. That said, international agencies, also play a critical role and we have to understand and respect that, particularly where human rights law is under threat and humanitarian actors are under threat. And as I say, very often they themselves are localised. And the last thing I wanted to say is... I think we need to be really clear as a community that we are comfortable with a mixed approach. We have to understand what international organizations do. We have to work with our INGO partners. The NT represent a key partner for the UK government over many years. Thank you for that. But I think exactly the experience of MARN, and I've worked with MARN previously two decades ago, one of the most inspiring, I think, organizations on the ground in Palestine. There are many like that. It's finding them, it's working with them and it's investing in those relationships over time. It's person-to-person contact. It's not just a financial transaction.

Thank you. Very good.

I think over to-- Ms. Over to DNA.

Over to DNA. Thank you, Jhanti. 87 million lives delivering. That's the time. So how do we use radical transparency to reduce the cost of humanitarian action? It's about money to save lives. I'm going to start with Honorable Guevara Man from Panama. Where are you? Mucho gusto. Given Panama's unique experience as a regional humanitarian logistic hub, What additional measure could the international community and member state take to reduce delivery times and overcome bottleneck in the movement of humanitarian relief supply during emergency? Por favor.

Thank you very much. So as you said, as a logistics hub, we are committed to reducing response times and avoiding bottlenecks. So from our perspective, this requires stronger inter-institutional coordination simplified and digitalized customs procedures, and pre-agreed emergency protocols that can be activated immediately. Regular simulation exercises with UN agencies, national entities as well, can also help us identify delays and improve response times. Our goal in Panama and elsewhere for sure is to ensure that our strategic location translates into faster, more efficient, and more predictable humanitarian assistance throughout the region. Thank you.

Muchisima gracias, Excelentisimo. Kuwait, Honorable Sadik Marafi, Minister, Salaam. How can member state and humanitarian actors strengthen coordination and targeted diplomacy to secure safe and impeded humanitarian access, strengthen the protection of civilian, and better address humanitarian needs?

First of all, thank you very much for organizing this important discussion. Tom, thank you very much for your leadership and for your support, which we are in Kuwait fully in support to your work and duties. I think and I believe field trips is one of the important elements of receiving funds, supporting even people in need, but not any field trip. We have to create or start with a field trip that those who are in the field trip are, first of all, decision makers. Maybe I have raised this matter or this idea during the last donor group meeting of the ICRC in London in June, I think we have to have a level of ministers, even prime ministers, to be in the field, because connecting with those who are in need is very important. And then they will continue and go back and knows how those people are suffering. especially even in some fields that it's difficult to reach even. So this is an important element that we have to think about and work on.

Thank you. WFP, Carr, my dear Carr, how has the work on logistic and supply chain changed the sector, and what is next?

Great, thanks. And maybe I just say a few words on the context, because I think that's important on the why. I mean, we see record levels of global hunger now. It's driven by conflict. We have never seen more conflict since the Second World War. It's driven by now the disruptions to maritime trade with the three choke points in the Black Sea, the Strait of Hormuz, and now the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb. And it's driven by extreme weather events. We saw what happened in Nepal a couple of weeks ago, and we're really frightened about El Nino, the super El Nino that is coming at us. And this is all compounded by the lack of resources, but also the challenge to the respect of international humanitarian law, as was discussed earlier today. So, you know, certainly we will need more resources, more money, as you said, Jan. We also need, you know, member states to really step up on finding political solutions to these conflicts and protect humanitarian workers in these contexts. But, you know, it's also up to us as humanitarians. What can we do more to do better with less to squeeze out as much assistance as possible for every dollar that we manage to mobilize, to be as efficient and effective as possible. I mean, there are many ways, but one of the ways is this joint initiative around supply chains that we brought forward together with UNICEF. You know, 70% of the resources in the humanitarian sector is related to supply chains. So, you know, there are huge opportunities here. We have come together to have lead agencies around procurement to join up freight forwarding and warehousing and to have the best position to deliver on the last mile. This will really bring huge economies of scale, strengthen our ability to deliver, including in the hardest to reach places. We are now piloting this in five countries. We're building also, I should say, on the experience of UNHAS, the Humanitarian Air Service, which 20, 25 years ago, everyone were doing their own. Now it's one joined up service that does it for everyone. And we are piloting in five countries. We hope to have the results in the next few weeks. And the idea is to, before the end of the year, to scale this up in all the 25 humanitarian operations. So it's one example, but there are many, many more. And we are tapping every stone on our side and making sure that we're working together, focusing on joint outcomes. Thank you.

Tack, tack, tack. Delivering with radical transparency. Honorable Minister from Malta in the room, Chris Fern, not arrived, was supposed to arrive late. All right. So I'm passing to Google, Maggie Johnson. You represent two of the biggest and most influential technology company on earth. From the perspective of the private sector, what would radical transparency look like? How can data and artificial intelligence help us to deliver assistance faster and more efficiently to those in need?

Thank you. AI and data are really critical to crisis response and resilience. These are really important priorities for Google. Every year, billions and billions of alerts go out over Android, Google Search, Google Maps, warning people all over the world that hurricanes, floods, earthquakes are coming, and other natural disasters. this is, all of these systems function because of AI and data. So they're really critical for many of the things that we've been talking about here. Now, Google.org is Google's philanthropic organization. And we've also been really involved with anticipatory action, which is this idea of actually trying to be there ahead of time when a crisis occurs. So one of the things that we've done is we've supported the Humanitarian Data Exchange, which is HDX signals, which is a combination of both humanitarian and geographic data. And it's one of the most important early warning systems that we have. Using the information from this system and advanced AI forecasting tools, we really can get closer to the 87 million goal. One of the things that we are going to do is we're going to reinvest in the system with OSHA, and that's going to be about 1.7 million to scale the system. And with that, the funding will actually go to deploying new, you know, like really brand new flood and cyclone models that will be implemented in the system, as well as training OSHA staff to use it in really effective ways. This is going to reach 1.5 million people around the world. ahead of a natural disaster, and that's going to be in about 15 countries, and hopefully we'll save lives and livelihoods because of that. Thank you.

Thank you so, so very much. Microsoft, President, Justins Fellow. The same question from another angle.

Thank you. I really reflected on this question of radical transparency, and it made me feel guilty, and I am guilty of something. I've worked with IOM and UNICEF and Plan International and UNHCR and virtually every humanitarian organization in this room over the last decade to build the digital capabilities that run a lot of these organizations in partnership with my friends at Google. And what I've realized is we have done a phenomenal job building the systems that support organizations. but not the systems that always support the beneficiaries, the people that we're trying to support in the field. Tom, that's why it's hard to get data, humanitarian data across these organizations. That's why we still do not have a common identity system for people. And radical transparency to me means breaking those systems down. That means partnering in a new way across industry. with NGOs, with the UN to build common capabilities that will actually accelerate humanitarian aid. Now, to do that, we need to do three things, I think, differently over the next 12 months. Number one is we all need to lean in to the TAP program that the UN has put together, the Technology Accelerator Program. There, we are actually working on building a common identity system, a common humanitarian data exchange. And if we can build it once and use it in many places, we can get the benefits of that. The second is the private sector needs to organize itself better. It's too much of a mystery when you work with the private sector of, hey, what's pro bono, what's low bono, what's commercial, how do we work with you? What are the services that you can bring together to the tap to help accelerate the UN system? And we're starting to get better at that, bringing through our pledge and others' pledges, NTT, EY, and other companies to the fore to help really accelerate these capabilities. And the third thing is we need leadership. We now have systems using AI tools that we can stand up and build in three weeks, not three months or three years. Tom, we did that with the grant management system in OCHA. We need to do that more so that when we get here a year from now, we've made progress on these common capabilities that will allow every organization to move faster in this room. Thank you.

Hope is in the air. Thank you. Noor Hussein Al-Sawati, Mama Noor. What's your ask of founders of this system, my dear? Sister, over to you.

Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, all the people in OCHA. I am Nour Hissin. I'm coming from Sudan. My colleague, she can translate the rest of my talk. And I'm coming with a big, big message for you all. I know that you all know what's happening in Sudan. But all the Sudanese need you. And all the children of Sudan need you. Not just for the support of the money, but for you to be with us, to be with us. Okay, I'm sorry.

Ms. It's okay.

This is Noor, Mama Noor, as we know. She's coming to you from Sudan, as she mentioned. She's coming with lots of asks of you, knowing what the situation is on the ground, and she's here to ask for your support for the women and the children of Sudan. Thank you. She runs the organization called Candle, Shamma, and their focus is women who are sexual and gender-based violence survivors.

She is also a survivor of.

Gender-based violence, and she's here in support of those women who are also in Sudan experiencing this challenge.

فكرة تساعدنا في انه نحن فعلا نعبر فيها عن احتياجنا، نعبر فيها عن المشاكل اللي بنواجهها، نعبر فيها عن المعاناة اللي قاعدين نعانيها، عملنا شمعة ونحن واثقين من انه الناس هتسمعنا وهتشوفنا وهتساعدنا في انه نحن نعبر بمجموعات الاطفال فاقد الرعاية الوالدية، وايضا النساء ضحايا العنف والاستغلال الجنسي.

Shamma is the first women's organization in Sudan that tackles gender-based violence and supporting survivors of GBV and SBV. The organization also provides services to the children of women who come to seek support from her organization. The purpose of our organization now is to ensure that all women and children have dignity and access to support in Sudan. She says that what they've experienced in Sudan has taken away a lot of their dignity, and this is their opportunity to restore that dignity to women and children and girls in Sudan. First off, she wants everyone to know that national NGOs are indeed the backbone of the humanitarian response in country. And she's asking all of you to choose to work with national NGOs and civil society that really fit your goals and can achieve your objectives because they have access on the ground. It's really important for you to engage to really understand that the organization that you're engaging with can carry out the objectives you have and your programming.

And.

She's calling on all of you to actually visit, go see and learn from the NGOs on the ground, how they're structured, how they're working, who their staff are, and to work together hand in hand to carry out assessments and identify gaps and highlight opportunities. She says it's really important for you also to do your own assessment of what the strengths and gaps are for each organization and how you think you can support to make them a more long-term partner. Next, she says it's very important for you to work together to put together project proposals and to agree on what gaps are out there and to come with adequate funding and support. Maybe the last one is, please stay the course. Be engaged throughout the project. Ask questions. Work with NGOs to support their increased transparency and efficiency. Thank you.

Shukran, Mama Noor, shukran. Last but, you know, UNICEF. My dear Ted, so much urgent, vital work fall outside severity four and five priorities. How do we protect that part of the response and keep genuine link with development? Please, you have the floor. We need all the children of the world.

Thank you, Jen. Let me make four quick points. Firstly, I think we need to manifest total needs and reflect total needs. Because if you don't count those needs, you're not going to address them. In 2026, 152 million people, half of them children, fell outside the hyper-prioritized response. And we need to continue to find ways to reach those people. including by recognizing that there's severity three areas that are at risk of turning into severity four and five areas, and they need to be part of the hyper-prioritized response. Second, build on existing systems and avoid duplication. Governments in crisis countries, including in conflict countries, are the first line of defense and the first duty bearers, and they need to be included in our definition of localization, not just local civil society, but local authorities as well, and social service delivery systems. By doing that, you create that link to development. Third, work with development actors from the get-go in supporting those systems, as we are doing today in places like Afghanistan and South Sudan. And then lastly, include in our hyper-prioritized humanitarian action sectors and areas of work that lean into development but are still lifesaving. Children and their families tell us that one of their top priorities is education. And yet, as we stand here today, education and emergency funding has dropped by 81 percent. .02 percent of country-based pool fund is focused on education. You have to focus on education as part of a life-saving activity. It's essential for children's well-being, for their protection, for their sense of hope and a future. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your time today. Thank you to Yandi, Deana, and all the speakers who've joined in. Thank you to the team who put together an amazingly organized event. And thank you also to all those who weren't able to speak but gave up their places so that others could do so. I draw three big general conclusions from this excellent conversation. One, We're talking about something positive here, and not just about how challenging it all is. We know it is desperately challenging, but there is something extraordinary that we're trying to do together. Two, I love that we are, as humanitarians, a noisy, chaotic, disagreeable bunch. That is our great strength, and may we never, ever lose it. And let's lean into the differences we have, the tensions, the disagreements, and keep working out how we get better together. And third, if this was easy, someone would have fixed it a long time ago. It's not easy. And the response cannot just be purely technocratic and graphs and prioritizations and so on. We also need space for the reimagination of what we do, the bold, radical rethinking of how we carry on innovating in this space. Because this work really matters, and Noma Nour, you've helped us close, really, by understanding, again, why we're doing this. And it may be daunting, but this community, this movement, is mighty. And so thank you. I hope the two objectives are achieved, that you feel part of something special, because you are all part of this effort, and also that we finished exactly on time. Thank you.