2025 ECOSOC Humanitarian Affairs Segment - Economic and Social Council, 27th Plenary Meeting

Excellencies, distinguished delegates, good morning. I declare open the Humanitarian Affairs Segment of the Economic and Social Council at its 2025 session and call to order its 27th meeting. I now invite the Council to begin its consideration of agenda item 9, entitled Special Economic, Humanitarian, and Disaster Relief Assistance. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, welcome to the 2025 ECOSOC Humanitarian Affairs Segment. This year's theme, Renewing Global Solidarity for Humanity, Saving Lives, reducing suffering, and mobilizing solutions for humanitarian action captures both our highest aspirations and our most pressing moral imperative. I stand before you at a defining moment for multilateral humanitarian action. The trends we witness today challenge the very foundations of the international system we have built together for over nearly eight decades. Colleagues, we meet confronting immense challenges to international order, to our planet, and to our shared humanity. The increasingly brazen disregards for the rules of war creates and compounds appalling humanitarian suffering. A changing climate harms us all, but the elderly, young, sick, and poor bear the heaviest burden. Across regions, we witness concerning trends that transcend borders and political systems demanding collective attention and unified response. In nearly every crisis, development gains are thrown into reverse, leaving growing numbers of people in extreme poverty. The numbers are staggering. Today, over 300 million people need urgent humanitarian assistance and protection. For millions more, The only lifeline is humanitarian aid. Yet, we face a stark reality. Humanitarian efforts are paralyzed by a shortfall in funding. With funds so short, humanitarian appeals are inclusively hyper-focused on those in the most extreme need. This has spurred an acceleration of the humanitarian reset. championed by the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Tom Fletcher, and the subject of our first panel. As we approach the 80th anniversary of the United Nations, I urge all Member States to reclaim and renew our global solidarity. Your presence here today demonstrates that despite our differences, we recognize our shared stake in addressing humanitarian suffering. But presence alone is not enough. In this global emergency, Member States must not only reiterate support for international human rights and international law, humanitarian law, but must also act decisively on our obligations. This is why I am proud to share a call to action, a rallying cry to protect lives, alleviate suffering, and uphold the promise of the United Nations and its partners that humanitarian action remains a vital, trusted force in today's world and in the years to come. Issued under my authority as Vice President of ECOSOC, responsible for the Humanitarian Affairs Segment, the Call to Action reaffirms our commitment to global humanitarian action grounded in humanitarian principles and General Assembly resolution 46/182. It acknowledges that we must uphold international humanitarian law, respect humanitarian principles, and ensure the protection of civilians. It demands to strengthen humanitarian financing, with calls to fully and urgently meet humanitarian appeals, diversify resources, and scale innovation and anticipatory approaches. And it reaffirms the necessity of advancing humanitarian action that is inclusive and responsive to the needs, priorities, and rights of all affected people, that enhances the essential role of local and national partners, including women-led organizations, and that supports early and sustained investments to strengthen resilience. I'm deeply grateful for the strong contributions and constructive engagement from delegations across all regions as I prepare the call to action. I'm heartened to announce that, as of today, 75 member states have joined the call to action. Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Colombia, Croatia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Eswatini, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Qatar, UAE, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Yemen. We thank all these States for their support. This is a testament of our reinforced message of unity and shared commitment. The call to action will remain open for more states to join through the upcoming dates. We encourage you to bring this to the attention of your colleagues. Excellencies, colleagues, over the next three days, You will hear directly from humanitarian leaders who embody the courage and innovation our system needs. You will engage with a humanitarian reset that Under-Secretary-General Fletcher will present, a bold reimagining of how we deliver assistance. But transformation cannot be left to humanitarian actors alone. It requires the full engagement of the whole multilateral community. It demands that we move from rhetoric to action, from pledges to delivery, and from narrow interest to our shared humanity. The world is watching. History will judge us not by our words, but by the lives we save right now. I now have the honor of turning to His Excellency Ambassador Bob Rye, President of ECOSOC, for his opening remarks. Excellency, you have the floor.

Let's see if we can get this to work. Is it on? Yes, we are on now. Thank you so much. I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak to you today. having taken up some time yesterday as well. And I really have appreciated the chance to come to Geneva to meet with many heads of agencies, as well as with many representatives here. For me, as president of ECOSOC, it's not about New York or Nairobi or Geneva. It's about the whole of the UN and all that the UN does in all of its work. And the work that goes on here is critically important, and I think we all recognize the importance of the moment that we are in. If you will forgive me a personal moment, 63 years ago, a young blonde kid was sitting at the Canada desk with his dad, and thinking what an incredible place the United Nations was. And I now find myself having said all my life that I would follow a different path from the one that I wanted to be on at some time, that I've come back to Geneva and I've come back to to be here and to be with my colleagues at the United Nations. And so this is also a moment of some personal emotion and reflection. as I think about the course of my own life, of course, but not only that, the course of the world since those days in the 1960s. The issues were very different then, and the membership of the UN was much smaller. But frankly, the challenges were the same challenges as we face today, the challenges of how do we represent ourselves, our own nation states, and advance the interests of our own governments. We're here to represent governments, but we're also here to do something different and to take us a step beyond where we've been in advancing the interests of the world. And we all recognize, I think now more than ever, that we are at a tremendously difficult moment. A couple of other observations. In a variety of jobs that I've had of helping organizations change, which has been part of what I've done for a living, someone pointed out to me years ago that there's a key difference between producer organizations and organizations that are driven by client and consumer and citizen needs. Producer organizations tend to think of the organization first and tend to make certain assumptions about their lives and about how they relate to the world around us. Organizations that are truly driven by the interests of clients or the interests of consumers or the interests of citizens have to learn how to change quickly because circumstances change. And organizations that develop a culture where we put clients first and we put citizens first and we put the interests of the consumers first tend to be much more successful at embracing change and helping to make change happen. Organizations that are driven by, if you like, their own interests or by the interests of their producers, or in fact are driven by the people who work in the organization and reflect less what's happening going on outside, have a much harder time reflecting change. And I can tell you a true story. I was once talking to the members of a symphony orchestra. about the fact that they were going to have to change because no one was coming to listen to their music. And the organization was facing a tremendous economic problem. And there was a member of the orchestra at the very back of the hall who said, Mr. Ray, can I interrupt you for a moment? And he said, quite seriously, he said, look, Mr. Ray, you have to understand, we play the best music in the world and we play it well. And if people don't come to listen to us, That's their problem. And I listened to that. I said, just for a moment, just reflect on what you've just said. Because the fact is, if no one's coming to listen to you, you really don't have an orchestra. It depends on a relationship with an audience. And it depends on a relationship with others as that transformation. And the fact is, we're going through a moment in the life of this great organization, this great global system, which is neither just an organization nor just a system, or I might even say, nor even a system. And we have to understand that the people that we are serving are the people that matter. The people whose interests we have to serve are our number one concern, our top priority. Our top priority is not who delivers which service. which agency or other does what exactly. That's not the critical question. The critical question is, how do we serve the people of the world most effectively and best? And in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, we have to develop that clear-eyed sense of exactly what is the challenge that we face. And the second piece of advice I would share to you is, that it was a, he was a good friend.

Of mine, had been for a very long time. And before his death, I had several conversations with him about what he had learned over his life.

What were the lessons of his career as a politician, as a mediator, as a statesman of France he said Bob three things first it is more important to listen than to speak.

And that was a difficult lesson for me because I'm in the habit of talking more than listening.

And I was saying to Tom that there are people who don't understand the difference between listening and.

Waiting their turn to speak there is a difference.

Because if you are just thinking, "I'm about to speak,".

That means that you're not listening to the person before you.

And so you need to listen closely. And the second thing was, when you speak, it's essential to bear in mind that you could be wrong.

It is quite possible that your idea is not set in stone, it's not a reality, a theological truth.

And what you say, you must say with a great deal of humility.

With an understanding that you could be wrong. I said, yes, I do understand that.

And the third thing is that you need to create space in everything that you do to allow.

For the other two things to happen.

You must create a space for discussion, for dialogue, for conversation, where one can think and act.

And I recommend these words to you as we are discussing how can we change. How can we move things forward? How can we really reach a point where we're able to change and to act? But before changing or acting, we need to listen, we need to learn, and then we need to act.

So when our founders created ECOSOC, it's important to remember that they did so with the belief that you can't just build lasting peace by ending wars. People say sometimes the Charter is about peace and security. I said, no, read the Charter. People often tell me what's in the Charter. They haven't read it. Read the Charter. The Charter is about peace and security, yes, but it's clear that the vision of those who wrote the Charter was an understanding that it wasn't just coming out of the six years or eight years or 12 years of conflict It was about understanding the economic and social disaster that had preceded the conflict. And that in this city, we remember that one of our first organizations was the ILO, which was built specifically to deal with creating decent work and better relations between employers and employees. And so the ECOSOC comes out of a sense that it has to be at the heart of international cooperation. ECOSOC, we should proudly say, is a charter body of the United Nations. Its duties and functions are set out in the United Nations. Now, admittedly, parallel to the process of creating ECOSOC, the GATT was created, the Bretton Woods institutions were also created, and all of that took place at the same time. But as countries became independent and as the world began to change and transform, increasingly the UN became the place and ECOSOC became the place where all countries came together, not simply as debtors or as those struggling to enter into the world of independence and co-determination, but as a place where we could discuss and share the operations and work of the whole organization. And we've created many institutions that have allowed us to do it. In fact, a bewildering number of institutions to do it. And it's not inappropriate that after all this time and with the crisis in funding that we that surrounds us today. that we look at all of what's going on and say, how can we do what we're doing better? Not abandon it. People say, let's get back to basics. We say, yes, but the basics are what we do. The basics are coping with the development and humanitarian needs of people around the world, dealing with the impacts of climate change and conflict on people, on communities. understanding that human rights matter as well, that people's sense of law and justice and the rule of law and creating institutions that treat everyone with dignity are an integral part of what the United Nations is all about and what ECOSOC is all about. And it sometimes It's interesting to me that when we look at things like the erosion of trust in multilateral institutions, we look at the crushing debt burdens that exist, we look at the dramatic shortfalls in funding, that in all of these things, we must recognize that they become less chilling when we recognize that we actually have the collective capacity for change. We have the ability to change things. We have the ability to say, yes, things are terrible, but what can we change that will make this better? How can we pick up the pieces and convince ourselves and convince our governments and convince nation states that, in fact, this is a time not simply of disruption and chaos and conflict and death and war and starvation. It is a time where people struggle for dignity and people struggle for life. And it is that spirit of not of a naive, happy banana optimism, but a firm belief that we can, from our own experiences, we know it is possible to make things better. Our ancestors made things better. And we have to make things better for future generations. And one of the ways we do it is not by worshipping at the altar of everything has to stay the way it is. That is ridiculous. Even a great British conservative, Edmund Burke, said, We must reform in order to maintain the value of institutions. For institutions to survive, they must learn how to change and how to reform. And let us just go back to what I was saying before, but we must keep our eye on who needs us. right now. What is it that we do that's valuable? Well, let's remind ourselves of what we do that's valuable. The refugee fleeing violence today needs shelter right away, yes, but also needs skilled training for tomorrow. So when you say, does he need a humanitarian handout? Yes. Does he need to help from humanitarian agencies? Yes, but also from development agencies. And so it's not choosing between humanitarian and development. Break down those silos. Break down those ways in which we have of excluding what others are doing. Connect them up, link them together, and make it work more effectively. There are communities that are recovering from drought, and they need food assistance right away. But we also need to know how to build climate-resilient agricultural systems. Drought and heat are going to be with us for the foreseeable future. It's not suddenly going to get better in large parts of the world. We are going to have massive flooding and massive forest fires. We have them today. In my own country, they are a terrible and horrific reality for the people who are being affected by them. But that is our reality, and therefore we have to figure out how can we become more resilient in the face of this? How can we rebuild? We need peacekeepers. We also need functioning institutions, the rule of law, and yes, we need economic opportunity. And that's the kind of coordination that ECOSOC was created to try to build. And doing these things as we are doing differently is what we are here to discuss and what I know Tom Fletcher wants to talk to us about today. It's about learning how to reset. Yes, it's a humanitarian reset, but it's not just a humanitarian reset. The work we do, the humanitarian work we do, which involves agencies and others that are spending billions of dollars every year, billions and billions of dollars just in feeding the world and keeping the world from starvation and giving them a place to stay in times of displacement such as we haven't seen. But as we'll be discussing in Seville in just a few short weeks, we're going to need new financing mechanisms that allow developing nations to escape the terrible cycles of debt in which they find themselves. We need new partnerships between government, civil society, and the private sector, and we need new ways of sharing the burdens that capture both capacity and responsibility. ECOSOC and the United Nations itself is not a global government. Let's not pretend that it is. It's a government that can't tax. What kind of a government is that? It's a government that has to ask everybody for money all the time, constantly. I can remember my first week in New York, and I said, isn't there anybody here who isn't just here to talk to me about money? And the answer is no. No, that's what people want to talk about. And it's true. I mean, that's something we have to accept. But the only way in which the UN system becomes more successful is if we understand, stop pretending we're a big government. We're not a big government. We're a very fragile group of institutions whose well-being depends on the kindness and support of others. And therefore, we have to convince them that what we do is worth it to them. We have to reinforce the message that we're not asking people to do something because we think it's the moral thing to do. Of course, we do think it's the moral thing to do, but that's not going to move the mountains we have to move. What moves the mountains we have to move is convincing countries and convincing all of us that, in fact, it's our interests that matter. and that it's in all of our interests, both self-interest and our common interest, to strengthen our common institutions. And in strengthening these institutions, I'm not saying strengthen them like rigor mortis. No, that's not strength. I mean strengthening them to be resilient and supple and capable of changing and capable of delivering. And that has to be our mantra all the time. Whoever we're talking to, rich or poor, we have to remind everyone that working together makes us all better off. It makes us all stronger. Economics is not just a transaction. It's about creating institutions and markets and prosperity that actually lifts all boats. When we fight a pandemic in one country, it's not as if there's a wall around that country that stops the pandemic from spreading any further. That pandemic doesn't know borders or frontiers or boundaries. It doesn't even know what language you speak. It doesn't know whether you're rich or powerful or whether you're poor. It knows nothing of these things. And so we have to take the lessons that the world is teaching us, nature is teaching us. Nature is teaching us that we are so much stronger when we work effectively together, and that strengthening our common institutions is at the foundation of what we have to do. So whether you're sitting at a desk from my country, from Canada, or whether you're sitting at a desk from any other country in the world, it's important to remember that you're not just sitting at that desk to speak for your country. You're there to listen to what's happening to other countries, and then to take that message home and say, you know, we do have to think about these things. We cannot just ignore them. We cannot just pretend that the world is about us. This narcissism, which takes over so much of politics, where people think they're making progress by only advancing the interests of their country, ignores entirely the human reality that it's our relationships that matter. It's our connection with each other that matters. And it's our ability to understand that we improve lives together by working together. As the Secretary General.

Says, solidarity is the necessity. It's the same thing. The two are essential.

So we have a choice over these next three days, but it'll take more than three days. We know what that choice is. The choice is, do we keep working in silos and pretend that we're not facing massive forces that require us to change, or are we prepared to change? And in changing, we need to understand a couple of things. First of all, we need to understand that change is not easy. It is not easy. because it means giving up some things which have value and had enormous value and made a huge contribution. But it changes, it becomes easier when we think in a very, very focused way about why we're doing what we're doing. Why are we here? And I don't mean this in some existential or theological question, but why are we here at the United Nations? What is it we're supposed to be doing? And I come back to where I started. We are supposed to be serving humanity. And we have to constantly ask ourselves the question, how do we best serve humanity? And if people say to me, well, We're here because we're here because we're here. That's not enough. Or say that my institution is always best and we do things differently, so please don't affect us by these changes because we know we don't need your help. You say, no, that's not good enough. We have to build from the ground up. We have to do coordination. We have to do more steering and a little less rowing. We have to learn how to bring a vast public out there that wants to serve. We have to build relationships with partnerships. We have to make sure that we're not simply doing stuff because this is the way we've always done it before. And we have to be prepared. Finally, we have to be prepared to act. Listening and learning are important, but so is action. In fact, I will close by quoting from the famous Rabbi who asked three central questions, Rabbi Hillel, he said, "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? But if I'm only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?" And these questions don't go away. We have to speak up for ourselves. Nothing wrong with self-interest. Advocating for what one has and what one wants is fine, but that can't be the end of a conversation. You can't go through life with your hand on that horn all the time. Although living in New York, you sometimes think some people can. And we have to understand that if we don't do it now and don't start doing it now, then we really are failing future generations who are depending on us and the people out there who need our help right now. So thank you very much.

I want to thank the President.

Of ICOSOC for that statement.

Tom Fletcher, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, to make a statement.

Well, thank you, Madam Vice President, and may I make tribute to your energetic leadership of this session and to the extraordinary effort to get those 75 countries already signed up to the call to action. If you're not on that list, watch out, she's coming for you. I also want to pay tribute to the eloquence and example that we've just heard from our president here, Ambassador Bob Ray. I'm so glad that that young child 63 years ago was listening so carefully and has turned into the leader that you are today. And thank you for your resolute defense, consistent defense of the international system and our international values. Now, The theme of the segment, the humanitarian affairs segment, could not be more urgent. Renew global solidarity for humanity. And we often call our sessions something like that, don't we? And yet right now, these are more than just the words on an agenda, because our sector is underfunded, overstretched, and literally under attack. And so this is also a call to action to reduce suffering, to save lives, and to mobilize real practical action, as Bob has said, for a world which is on fire. So this session is not hypothetical. This is not a drill right now. We have to make sure that we are not an orchestra without an audience. Let me remind you of some uncomfortable truths. As we speak, the Middle East teeters on the edge of a wider war. People in Gaza starving while the food that you have provided rots at border crossings. Are we here for them? Girls in Afghanistan banned from school, while their country cries out for their contribution. Are we here for them? Women in Sudan experiencing horrific violence, their bodies turned into battlegrounds, suffering met with impunity and indifference, as we'll hear in a moment from my friend Mama Noor. Are we here for them? And let's not forget the gangs terrifying families in Haiti, the aid workers detained in Yemen, the people killed and forgotten in the Sahel. As if all that weren't enough, we are also at war with our planet, causing a climate crisis which will drive more humanitarian need in the coming years than any other factor that we discuss today. And our descendants, the eight-year old or young kid, the young Bob Ray in the room who I hope is listening to us today, will ask, were we here for them? And meanwhile, our teams, our humanitarian staff, the bravest of us, are not hesitating to go towards the sound of gunfire, the sound of danger, to drive those convoys through those checkpoints. and they're being killed in record numbers while those responsible for killing them roam free are we here for those colleagues those people who are doing that work on our behalf so Excellencies and colleagues allow me to be candid the humanitarian movement is facing its biggest test since that rules-based system was devised at a time when we had learned to our cost what happens to us if we fail to ensure we have that scaffolding around our international system. And this is not just a crisis of financing, it's also a crisis of morale and legitimacy. So we need you right now. We're in a moment of conflict, of transactional politics, of selfishness, of division, of polarisation. And global solidarity, the lifeblood of what we do, is in retreat. And at this moment, when the needs are at their highest, the funding is also in retreat. Only six months after I launched here a global humanitarian overview which already ruthlessly prioritized 190 million lives that we could reach, fellow humans that we could support this year, we've been forced again this week to hyper-prioritize, to make brutal life and death decisions about which of that already reduced number we can realistically reach this year. We're left with the cruelest of equations, where we make those life and death decisions, literally, about who to save. And let me be absolutely clear, just because we are asking for less money to save fewer lives than we want to save, it does not mean that those other people have disappeared somehow, that they are not still there, over 300 million of them needing our protection and help. We will save as many lives as we can with the resources that you give us. And all we are asking, and please write this down, and please send it back to your ministers and your leaders, We are only asking for 1% of what you spent as the world on defense last year, 1%. And this isn't just a call for money, of course, it's a call for global responsibility, for a shared commitment to end the suffering. It is a call for a mindset shift about how we work, as Ambassador Ray described. It is a call for a power shift in the sector and the humanitarian community. And to echo the ambassador's points about the next few days, we also make this call that all of us find a moment to come off our talking points and to find the individual moment of courage and creativity to support this effort. As a humanitarian movement, we will continue. The mission is still the right one. And I believe that there is still a movement out there of billions of people who will back us. And so I'll talk in a moment about how we are resetting, reform, regroup, renew, the four D's, define, devolve, deliver, and defend. Our efforts to redesign the system from the ground up, as Bob said, to meet the world as it is right now, but also to live up to the world as it should be. We'll find new allies, we'll find new sources of funding, we'll find new ideas. We won't just patch up the old model, we will also forge a new one, a bold humanitarian pact with the people we serve, more local, more lean, more green. Because those people on the front lines of crises know better than anyone what they need. As we reset, we must be there for them. And we'll hear now from some of those people who represent the real front line of humanitarian leadership, not those of us behind the acronyms. First, we'll hear from Mama Noor. I had the privilege of spending time with Mama Noor in Port Sudan in my first week in this job. She has dedicated her life to helping women and girls who've survived unimaginable trauma. Then, Ms. Safi from Afghanistan, in a country where aid cuts, as I saw a few weeks ago, are biting so hard. She represents the courage of women who refuse to give up on Afghanistan's future. And let me give you hot off the press from the IASC meeting yesterday, an unequivocal commitment from that group that women and girls will not just be protected in the humanitarian reset, they will lead the humanitarian reset. They will be at the heart of the humanitarian reset. and a commitment to our women humanitarian leaders as well that we will back them in their leadership of this work. We'll also hear from Mr. Amjad Shawa, who represents the resilience of Palestinian civil society and determination to serve communities even under such unimaginable circumstances. These leaders, the real leaders of our movement, don't work for the UN or international NGOs. They're not part of the logos and egos and silos of our system. They are something much, much more powerful. They are rooted in their communities with the trust of their communities and an unshakable belief that even in these darkest moments, we can choose to help each other. They are there for us and we must be there for them. We all only get one go at this. The question that faces us in the coming days, weeks and months is, are we brave enough to build a system that is worthy of their trust and to be there for them? Thank you.

Thank you to the.

Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and the Emergency Relief Coordinator for that statement.

We now have the incredible privilege of hearing from humanitarian leaders joining us virtually from the Sudan, Afghanistan, and Palestine. I first give the floor to Ms. Nour Hussein Al-Sewati, also known as Mama Nour. Mammanur is the director of the Shama organization in Sudan. Ms. Nur, you have the floor.

Thank you.

We apologize, the interpretation cannot take place because The sound does not allow for optimal interpretation.

I think the quality of the sound is not good enough for interpretation, I'm afraid.

The organization was founded in 2007, and since that date until now, more than 8,000 cases of sexual exploitation and gender-based violence have been processed. And also, children with disabilities. And the organization has been able, during this period, to change the reality. Women and children, and improving the social, psychological, and economic aspects, in terms of protection, in terms of protection and care, and the social prescription, and then, and then, the integration of them in the society again, with the constraints, in terms of the human situation in Sudan, which you know completely, the organization has suffered, and what it has suffered from from, I mean, in many of the details that we are working on, where we started from Khartoum to different states, and finally we settled in the state of Port Sudan, the Red Sea, at the request, of course, for protection and safety of these victims, especially we are talking about the victims that are inside the center of the candle, the rehabilitation, which is considered the first safe house in Sudan, provides services to the victims of the building on the and the social and economic and the sexual and the affairs of the people. And we're all in a good community, a stable, clear, and sustainable organization. The organization continued to provide services to these people. The different. And despite the increase in the number of people, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. There are some non-material aid that is provided by some international organizations, which are headed by the International Organization for Migration, and also by some government agencies, and also by some national organizations and charities. And, despite the circumstances, And the new balance for the organizations also, they are suffering because they are also providing services for the poor, weak and dishonest, and they are suffering a lot. Also, the organizations are affected by these conditions, and they are providing support and support, and the services are suffering, and the situations are suffering, for the poor, the to the victims in our society. We appreciate your trust in us, with the support of this year, in this historical and deep session, which gave us hope that we will thank you. And we thank you for your understanding of our issues and your cooperation with us, and your advocacy for our issues, especially the issue of the social media. We thank you for this opportunity. And we thank you for this opportunity. And we thank you for this opportunity. We thank you for this opportunity. We thank you for this opportunity. We And we also renew our commitment to the continuous and dedicated service to our sectors, to our women, and to our society. We hope for peace, security, and stability in Sudan and in the whole world. We thank you for your presence. We hope that God will help us all in serving these sensitive issues.

I thank the director of the Shamma organization for her statement. Due to the quality of the virtual connection, interpretation was not possible. However, we will make sure her statement will be available on the UNHCR website. Next, I give the floor to Ms. Sahar Safi, director of Sajam. women-led organization. Ms. Safi is also the youngest member of the Women's Advisory Group. Ms. Safi, you have the floor.

Am I audible?

Yes, you are.

Okay, Assalamu alaikum to everyone and warm greeting to everyone, excellencies, their colleagues and friends. It's truly an honor to join you today and I want to thank you for making space for the voice of local actors, especially women's. And my name is Sahar Safi and I speak to you today, not only as an Afghan woman and humanitarian, but on behalf of many women's and communities in my country who continue to work every day, often quietly, but with deepest strength. I lead a women-led organization called SIAM, based in Afghanistan. In our language, Yam symbolizes devotion, and that is really what our work feels like. And a commitment to serve, to protect dignity, and to hold on to hope, even in the most difficult times or difficult chapters. Every word I share today comes from the lived reality, not from a paper or policy brief or headline, but from what we see and feel every day and working on the ground in a place where space for women keeps shrinking. I meet women who are part of our initiatives and they have no other support other than us. And the grassroots organizations that women lead and are part of and the whole still find ways to operate regardless of the many bans placed on us. Even through everything we have faced, women-led organizations have not stopped, and we have remained close to our communities, responding with care, with trust, with persistence. In a place where others cannot go, we are already present. In homes where silence has replaced voices, we create spaces to speak. And in the systems that have left women behind, we still try to serve them in any way we can. One of the few enablers that have helped us continue our work has been the support from various donors. This support does not only provide essential supplies, it's also keep the local organizations alive. For example, the AHF, the Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund, has enabled us to pay our staff, sustain safe space for work, respond rapidly during emergencies. Also, the UN agencies, like UN Women, support us in critical time and have helped build our technical capacity and amplify our voices in key spaces. One year ago, I would never have thought that I would be with you here today, addressing this important forum and giving my perspective as an Afghan woman leader. When Under-Secretary-General visited Kabul recently, we appreciate not just his presence, but that he listened. And we share what I want to emphasize again here today. Afghan women are still here. We are not just recipients. We are responders and leaders. And the decision made in global rooms like this deeply affected what is possible back home. And I also want to highlight something very important, the rule of gender focus structures in humanitarian work. Two in particular, the Gender in Humanitarian Action Working Group, the GHA, and the Women's Advisory Group, WAG. Both of them are helping ensuring that women's voices and needs are not left behind. Like the WAGG has created a spaces for women from across the countries to share their perspectives. And the GEHA group has helped push for principled, inclusive programming and real gender mainstreaming, not just in words, but in action. I think if these spaces disappear, if gender becomes a secondary issue, then women and girls will once again be invisible in planning and response. That's a risk we cannot afford. And we also need to continue shifting power toward localization and women-led organizations. And that's not what we are not asking to be included. We are already doing the work. And what we need is trust, flexible funding, meaningful partnership, and this kind of. I come here not just to speak, but to affirm something also. Like the Afghan women in Afghanistan are still working with courage. That local actors, all of them still responding with the current consistency. And that our continued partnership, your continued partnership, allow us to keep going. Also, let me close with something I often hear from the women we serve. They often say this to me, like, we don't need someone to save us. We just need the chance to save ourselves. So I ask this, if we believe in solidarity, let's act on it. If we believe humanitarian response should be local, let's fund local actors directly. And if we believe in dignity for all, let's walk with women. Even the road is hard. And I don't want to speak more. and get a time. I wanted to thank you so much for standing with us, everyone who's in this global gathering. Thank you so much for standing with us. Thank you for giving us the moments to share our thoughts. Thank you very much.

I thank the director of Ceyan for joining us today. We will now hear from Mr. Amjad Shawa. Mr. Shawa is the director of the Palestinian NGO Network and has decades of experience as a humanitarian and human rights advocate. Mr. Shawa, you have the floor. Would you please unmute yourself? We cannot listen.

Thank you. Excellencies and colleagues, thanks for giving me this opportunity to speak to you today directly from Gaza, a place suffering under a brutal Israeli genocide and blockade for over 20 months. But just to start as you started, Your Excellency, to talk about children, about a child called Ahmed Zidan, 12 years old boy from Khan Yunis. Ahmed's mother, Reem, left home one morning to collect food from the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, GHF, distribution point in Rafah, despite the danger. She had no choice. Her children were starving. Ahmed walked beside her for hours under the threat of gunfire. As they approached the area, shots rang out. People screamed and ran. Then, Ahmed saw his mother fall, hit by a bullet. For hours, he stayed beside her body. unable to leave while bullets flew around him. Eventually, he was forced to leave her behind to find help. This wasn't the first loss for Ahmed. His brother, Nabil, has already been killed in Israeli airstrike the last year. Ahmed has dreams as yours. Dreams to have peaceful globe. No wars, no killing. What should be aid centers have become death traps. Civilians risk their lives for food only to be shot, tear gassed, or humiliated. Ahmed's plea is simple. dignity, and protection. He wants food, but not at the cost of his mother's life. Yesterday, only yesterday, there was 70 people were killed while they were waiting for aid trucks. Part of them in the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation military distribution points. I speak to you today from Gaza, where starvation has become official policy. Since March 2025, almost no aid has entered Gaza Strip. And the result, 71,000 children now face acute malnutrition. 60 children have died from starvation since March. Pregnant women suffer anemia rates above 60%. This is not a crisis. It's a genocide by design. And yet, in this darkness, Palestinian civil society, which is proud of the partnership with the colleagues of the UN agencies, INGOs, this civil society has been Gaza's lifeline under the bombardment and the blockade. We continue to work to have community kitchens, mobile clinics, and learning spaces. We reach the most vulnerable, newborns in the overcrowded shelters, people with disability unable to flee, children with chronic illness, pregnant women lacking care, the elder trapped under troubles, and orphans who are left behind. All guided by the humanitarian principles, mainly do no harm principle. We have lost hundreds of our colleagues, the aid workers. We do commemorate their lives. And still we are losing. Almost every day, we are losing part of these heroes on the ground. From UNRWA only, we have 280 aid workers who were killed. Gaza health system and water system are collapsing. Of the 55,000 people who are killed, 70% are women and children. Nearly half of them are under age 15. We demand you to work for actions, for a permanent ceasefire, for sanctions on those using starvation as a weapon, for those who are trying to replace our principles, our humanitarian principles, with such military mechanisms. We urge you to work to open all the crossing now to enter this blocked aid, 130,000 tons of aid is blocked for months. We urge you to work for justice for the victims, for these children who lost their mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters. End all military aid and arms transfer fueling this war. The humanitarian system cannot be reformed with more task forces and pledges, while enabling policies of starvation and siege. From Palestine to Sudan, Myanmar to Haiti, civil society is telling you the same thing. Center justice. Support those who have legitimacy on the ground. Gaza, not in need only for your statements and concerns. We need you to act. When history will judge this moment, we'll remember your courage, not your complicity. Please, don't fail Ahmeds and Gaza children anymore. Thank you.

I thank the director of the Palestinian NGO Network. Excellencies, colleagues, as we have heard, the humanitarian challenges ahead are enormous. While remaining grounded in humanitarian principles, we need a revitalized system guided by the people it serves that is smaller, smarter, and sharper. In the coming days, we will explore what this means in more detail. The four panels we have on the humanitarian reset, respect for international humanitarian law, adapting financing for an effective and efficient response, and looking at innovative models to save lives, reduce suffering, and promote people's resilience. We will hear from representatives from national and local organizations here in person and by remote for these important discussions. Your perspectives and contributions are invaluable. I expect our discussions to help us identify and rally around opportunities to reinforce and strengthen the coordination of humanitarian assistance in support of people in need globally. Thank you. I will now briefly pause the meeting to allow the podium to be rearranged. High Level Panel 1 will begin momentarily. Please remain seated. Colleagues, please find your seats. We will now begin high level panel one on the humanitarian reset, a dialogue with principles on the future of humanitarian action. It is my pleasure to welcome you to our first high level panel. Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, we gather for what may be the most consequential dialogue on humanitarian action in two decades since landmark changes in 2005. Those changes, spurred by lessons from crises in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Darfur, and later the Indian Ocean tsunami, are chief enduring innovations. The cluster system for accountability, the strengthened humanitarian coordinator functions for coordination, and the transformation of a modest local facility into the robust Central Emergency Response Fund. These changes brought significant improvements in the scale and predictability of humanitarian assistance, yet the context has fundamentally changed. The number of conflicts, has multiplied as political solutions have grown scarce, climate change effects have intensified, disregard for the laws of war have worsened suffering. Over the past decade, the number of people in need has grown steadily and rapidly. while the generosity of donors could no longer keep pace with demands for humanitarian assistance. Few of us could have predicted just how large, swift, and dramatic funding cuts would become. As Under-Secretary-General and Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher stated in our recent briefing, "People are dying right now because of aid cuts." Therefore, unlike in 2005, the humanitarian reset represents nothing less than a revolution in how we conceive, organize, and deliver humanitarian assistance. Mr. Fletcher has outlined a reset built on three R's: regroup, reform, and renew. With renewal resting on four pillars: define, deliver, devolve, and defend. This framework challenges to fundamentally reimagine humanitarian action for the realities of today and tomorrow. Today, dialogues will be courageously frank. We see honest assessments from humanitarian principles on the future of a system that must put people in need first. Our principles will address how the sector must adapt to current operational, political, economic, and financial challenges within the RESETS framework. It will explore critical questions. What is needed? Where are the gaps? What can be improved, including in seeking efficiencies? How can the sector become lighter and more effective, both immediately and in the longer term? The discussion will examine how humanitarian organizations should navigate a shifting global order and the rising influence of different actors in conflict areas. We will address how to build coherence among partners and between headquarters and field operations. Our panelists represent the diversity and strength of the humanitarian system. They bring perspective from different organizations, regions, and operational contexts. Each has confronted the challenges we will discuss in different ways. Their insights will inform not only today's conversation, but the strategic direction of humanitarian action as we move forward. They understand that the status quo is unsustainable and that transformation, however difficult, is essential. I'm pleased to welcome our distinguished speakers. I also welcome Mr. Jeremy Bonynge, who will be moderating today's panel following the initial intervention. We shall now hear presentations by our distinguished panelists. I would like, I would now like to turn to Mr. Fletcher, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator at the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA. Tom, simply put, what is your vision for the humanitarian reset? Can you elaborate on the four pillars, define, deliver, devolve, and defend? and what this looks like for people in need and for humanitarians. Over to you.

Thank you, Madam Vice President, and I pay tribute again to your extraordinary work on this call to action and bringing us together today. I'll be very brief at this point because many of you have already heard from me already this morning, but also you've heard much more powerfully from Noor, from Saha, from Amjad, why this moment matters. the context that we face as a global community right now. But also because you'll hear from my much more eloquent colleagues, and we're all part of a community right now. We have different logos and egos and acronyms, but we're all working to a common mission and a common purpose. I don't know if we can quite start and finish each other's sentences, but we can get pretty close. And so I really want to leave as much time as possible for them. but also as much time to hear from all of you because we are acting on your instructions. We are representing you out there in this more transactional, less generous world, and we need your support, as I've said earlier. So, we've set direction on these three phases of the reset. I won't test you on what they are, but it is, of course, regroup, reform, and renew. The IASC met yesterday in the wonderful offices of the IFRC to really focus on those first two, really, the regrouping and the reform parts. And if you hear nothing else today-- actually, there's one other thing I want you to hear in a moment. But if you hear nothing else today, please hear this, we have a plan. And I will spare you all the elements of it. I'll give you a couple of highlights of it now, and I will share more in public in the next couple of days on the detail of that plan. But we really have started to deliver those phases of regroup and reform. It's happening already, a third coming out of the sector as we remove a lot of duplication, bureaucracy, as we really focus on those that we serve. Building though on years of extraordinary work and confidence that we know how to do this. We are not regrouping because we've suddenly decided we weren't doing a good job. We are regrouping under the savage pressure of brutal and rapid cuts to our work. So what are we doing right now? There's a mindset shift. We are doing all we can to remove turf wars. between agencies, between UN and NGOs, between international NGOs and local NGOs, really focusing relentlessly on the bottom line of who does what uniquely well, and let's do that. We are moving in all our conversations, not from observing problems to trying to fix problems, to really being as practical as we can, and from shifting from a system based on the money we wished we had and that we hope we will get to one based on the money that we can realistically secure and how we will deliver that in the most prioritised way possible. A system which will be local where possible, international only when necessary, shared where possible and alone only when necessary and bottom up, not top down. And all of us in the sector all of us will be asking ourselves what power do we have and how can we share it what can be done better by the communities we serve than by us so to answer your question vice president and again only very briefly on the four D's they define We have launched this week our hyper-prioritized global humanitarian overview. And I don't do that with any joy or relish. We've already prioritized 190 million of the 307 million people that we should be reaching if this was a sane world. And now we're reducing that further to the 114 million people we could reach this year if, and this is the second thing I really want you to report back to your capitals, And I've said it already, but if your colleague has written this down in the report of the first session, please put it in bold in the report that goes back. Please underline it in the report that goes, put it in the title, please, of the report that goes back to capitals. We are only asking for 1% as the global humanitarian community to reach those 114 million people. We're asking for 1%. of what we collectively spent on defence last year. One percent of what the world spent on defence last year. Surely, surely we can do that. Surely that resonates with our politicians and most importantly with our public. Then the work strand around deliver, which includes empowering our humanitarian country teams, making sure that they've got more resource and more authority, but also making sure that there is a clear compact with them that they will really deliver for those we serve. We are looking to share services by default across the UN family and beyond. Supply chains, back offices, communication, logistics as far as possible. We're looking to shift towards multipurpose use of cash where it's appropriate and where we can see it works. We will ensure, as I underlined earlier, that protection of women and girls is at the heart of the humanitarian reset, not just protection, but the leadership of women and girls is at the heart of the humanitarian reset. And we say that, and this was unequivocally clear from the IASC meeting yesterday, in a moment when we recognize the challenges, the increased challenges faced by women and girls in this moment of change and flux. We'll deliver with more anticipatory action, and we will deliver in a way that retains this essential link between humanitarian and development work until the point where we don't have to talk about that anymore. I, for one, am sick of talking about the resilience and nexus and so on. Let's just get on and do it. Show, not tell, that this matters to us. But we'll also deliver a green humanitarian reset, sustainability at the heart of it, and we'll find ways to use new technology, and Amy and others are really on the cutting edge of this, to make sure that we work more effectively in the future. We will, the third D, devolve I've talked a bit about how we devolve authority to leadership in country, the humanitarian country teams, making sure that the coordination models are more context specific, more driven by local priorities, by the communities in which they are rooted, finding different ways to hold us to account and involve those voices of local communities in those accountability models, shift more money towards pooled funds, and again towards local actors within those pooled funds, particularly, I think, we think, an emphasis on women-led organisations. And we will streamline the cluster system that has grown up around our work, much of which is essential and very useful, but where there has been a bit too much growth, and we think we can halve the numbers, the number of clusters that support our work. And then constantly seek to improve our funds, the emergency fund, the central emergency fund and others to ensure they are really delivering the support that you ask us to deliver. And then the final D and I'll close here is, is defend where the strongest message out of the IASC meeting yesterday was that we really have to hold the line We must defend this space around international humanitarian law. It is not just the money which is under attack at the moment. It is the values at the heart of what we do. And we heard about many of the crisis contexts where that challenge is most acute. And we are determined as a collective, as a humanitarian community, to hold that line and defend that space unequivocally. through our advocacy, through our campaigns, and through working with all of you to hold that space. So we hope that this plan, these different elements, add up to a bold reimagination of the humanitarian system, drawing on the best of the work that we've done, the confidence from what we've delivered in the past. but also this sense that we will continue to change and innovate and grow with always those we serve at the very, very heart of the mission. And we need your support as the global humanitarian community, as member states, not just to help us secure that funding. And again, I underline, we're not asking for the moon here, but also to back us on the values and to bring your voice to this collective effort. And so I very much look forward to hearing from colleagues, hearing from you, and to a very rich discussion this morning. Thank you.

I thank Mr. Fleischer for elaborating on the four pillars. And I would like to turn now to Mr. Jagan Chabagane, Secretary General of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. Jagan, what do you hope will be key elements of the approach to humanitarian work after the reset?

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Tom, for that great introduction and wonderful speech earlier. And on your question, of course, you heard a lot on the sort of the more collective reset that Tom had been talking about in the morning and just now. I would like to share a perspective from IFRC, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Already late last year, we had initiated a process of listening, even before the current funding crisis became so prominent. Because what we believe is that it's extremely important for the organizations to have that humility on a regular basis to have that check that whether we are up to date or not. It's not about being good or bad. I think as Red Cross, I believe we have always been very good, but there are always opportunity to gain efficiency, cost effectiveness, and the reach of our program. And as part of that process, we have listened to more than 2,000 voices, more than half of them from the local communities. And there are few ideas emerging which very much aligns with the reset process we have been discussing more broadly as a humanitarian sector. One of the first things that came out from that is that the humanitarian system after the reset would be very local. And But it is local with accountability. And the accountability, not in the sense of just pushing the risks to the local actors, but sharing the risks, but delivering in an accountable manner. And it's all, it's really about the decision making at the local level. And I think the colleague from Afghanistan, what she said is that, you don't need to push us forward, we're already there. And somehow we have this notion that we need to put the local actor in the front. No, they're already there. We need to follow them. And I think we need to have the courage to follow the local actors who are already there. And also, we do need, while, you know, as IFC, we have been championing the localization, we also believe that the global solidarity is needed in many, many places. But when we do that global solidarity, I think it's really, really important that now we walk the talk, both the donors community and us as the international organization. We committed 25% of the internationally mobilized funding that goes to the local actors. We have achieved only 2% collectively. That must not be good enough for us, otherwise we'll keep on talking. And this is in our hand to change that. Nobody is stopping us to make that happen. So let's make that happen. And just to share with you colleagues that in the IFC, we are going to set up that target to 75%. We will not be satisfied with 25%. That's the push we want to make. Now, the second message that is coming is, I think the humanitarian system and as an organization, I think we got to have more collaboration, as you said, Tom, no silos, no egos. But at the same time, we also need to be much more conscious about our own mission creeps. Sometimes we establish complicated coordination mechanism, and maybe those were not needed if we are not doing the mission creep ourselves. We do mission creeps and it becomes complicated. We overlap each other, then we create a complicated mechanism to say that, oh, actually, we should not be doing the mission creep. So I think we need that focus, humanitarian focus, and really, really be disciplined ourselves so that the Tom's life becomes very easy and maybe not needed. I think if we can make Tom's job redundant, we would have succeeded. And we do need to diversify our financing approaches and models. And I think in IFRC, we are taking some really innovative financing modalities, but we have to take it to scale. Third one is a real issue around the humanitarian diplomacy, around how we preserve our humanitarian space, how do we protect our humanitarian workers, how do we uphold our principles and the international norms. And I think collectively, again, we have to push for this. And from the, so our call to the government is, as the states, I think you really have to uphold your friends accountable as much as you do to your foes. I think the current system, the system jumps very much to hold your foes accountable, not always your friends accountable. And for me, until and unless we have the courage to help our friends accountable, we will not overcome the sense of impunity that we are seeing around the world. And I think the discipline that we need from the humanitarian workers is that we should not pretend to be replacing the responsibility of the states. Most of the crisis we are seeing now and the pressure on the humanitarian organization is growing because there haven't been many political solutions to many of the crisis we are dealing with now. Until and unless there are political solutions to this crisis, the humanitarians, even if we get 200 billion, Tom, we will not be able to address those issues. There must be political solutions. Now, the fourth is we are also living in a digital age. So I think we as an organization, the humanitarian system, will also have to adopt the digitalization and ethical adoption of artificial intelligence. And this, my son asked me to put, he is artificial intelligence student. And then finally, finally, I think it's extremely, extremely important that we as an organization have the capacity and the culture of transformation. The days of five year plans and 10 years plans are gone. Things are changing so rapidly, even the one year plans are no longer relevant. You have to update your plan already less than six months. And we can address that only because if The reset humanitarian system has both culture and capacity of transformation. And that humility I talked about before, changing or accepting the weakness is not a wrong thing. It's not a weakness, actually, it's a strength. Only strong people, strong organization has the ability to do that. So, colleagues, we are here with different roles, experiences, and perspective, but with only one shared interest, Tom, I'm repeating you. how we can work together to better serve our humanity. If you are serious about transforming the humanitarian response, then we must be serious about shifting power, resources, and responsibility closer to the people we aim to serve. That means local, local, and local, but local with global solidarity. As local as possible, as international as necessary. So a true humanity reset from the perspective of IFRC is threefold: leading with humanity, acting with foresight, and delivering with accountability. All that comes best with local at the core. Thank you so much.

I thank the Secretary General of the IFRC for his comprehensive insights on strengthening local partnerships, enhancing accountability, leveraging emerging technologies like AI, and fostering a culture of transformation that translate humanitarian commitments into tangible action and political solutions. I would now like to turn to Ms. Amy Pope, Director General of the International Organization for Migration. Amy, what would a truly reset humanitarian system look and feel like for people affected by crisis and what immediate meaningful changes should they experience first? What specific commitments can each organization make to help realize that vision and ensure the system is more effective, coherent and accountable for those it serves? Over to you.

Thank you so much, Madam Vice President. And it's wonderful to be here on this panel with some good friends and community leaders and heads of agencies. Thank you so much. First of all, I just want to state what I think is the obvious, which is that the humanitarian system today is facing immense risks. Obviously, we're seeing raging conflict. We're seeing violence around the world. We're seeing prolonged crises that are lasting for years upon years. We're seeing record displacement and displacement that is increasingly being caused by flood, by drought, by storms, and by other disasters. And we're seeing a global political system that is undergoing massive change. And there's one more risk. And I say this a bit provocatively, because that one more risk is ourselves. And when I say ourselves, I don't just mean the UN agencies and the international NGOs. I mean all of you. I mean our member states. I want to start by underscoring something that something that Yaghen said, which is that humanitarian response cannot be a substitute for the hard work of diplomacy. of ending conflict, of building stability and peace, which is necessary for the education, for the jobs, for the opportunities for people around the world. And I want to underscore that member states cannot walk away from communities in crises. cut the funding and expect that the problems are all just going to go away, that people won't then move, that young people won't then become radicalized, and that jobs will be widely available. But I also recognize that we within the UN family and within the humanitarian system have our own responsibilities. And this can't be just about creating new boxes and beautiful PowerPoints and suggesting we've done a good job and we'll see you next time. In fact, our goal must be to set aside our egos, to set aside the turf battles, and to make sure that we are focused on transforming the experience of people who need our help in ways that are relevant to their needs and not for the long term. Now, I want to share an example which has powerfully affected me. In 2024, I had the chance to go to Goma, to the Democratic Republic of Congo. And often when I travel, I'll sit down with groups of women because we know that women and girls will often have very unique experiences. And I met this one young woman who told me that at the time of the crisis, when she'd been forced to leave her home, she had been studying for exams. And now that she found herself in a camp, all she wanted were books. All she wanted was to continue her studies. But all that she was given, she told me, were birth control pills because of the high likelihood that she would be raped. Now, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, this is a sign that our system is failing. This is a sign that what we are offering people is not aligned with their needs. And we know our job is not to protect what we do. We're not here to protect the humanitarian industrial complex. But we need to work together to make concrete commitments that address these gaps and address the inefficiencies. But again, I'm putting some responsibility back to all our member states. This means that you need to be with us and you need to fund it. It means you're not just funding the sexy, highly visible conflicts. It means that you also need to fund the vulnerable and you need to fund their transition. Now, I speak to hundreds of migrants and displaced people every year, and I promise you There is not one person I have ever met who says, "I love living in this camp. Please, can I stay longer?" Not one. And not one of them cares about our mandates. Not one of them cares about what vest I'm wearing or what insignia is on the back of my jacket. They just care about getting help, being safe, and having a chance to get out and to succeed. And I tell you, it starts with addressing what is increasingly a false divide between the humanitarian and the development. That's why we within IOM are we've agreed to champion the Secretary General's action plan on solutions with our partners at UNHCR, with our partners at UNDP, and with the leadership of OCHA. We have agreed that from the beginning of a conflict, we will go in with a mindset to transitioning people away from humanitarian towards solutions as quickly as possible. And there's some good examples out there. In Nigeria, the state governors are already demonstrating political will and local ownership by putting their own resources into the mix, by bringing their own money to help support displaced communities. And in Somalia, we're seeing local communities partner with the private sector so they can create new solutions for displaced people. So if we want to reset the system, we have to reset the incentives to move people off of humanitarian assistance, out of camps, and into the futures that they deserve and that they want. I had one government tell me, and they're not the only government that feels this way, that they feel that they are punished financially because they help displaced people integrate into new communities, rather than forcing them into high visibility, high fundraising potential camps. And the fact that some of these camps have been in place for decades should be seen by all of us as a failure to do this well. But that's what our fundraising system prioritizes. We raise money off of crises and dramatic stories. It doesn't prioritize raising money to solve the long-term problems, to give people the skills they need and the access to the jobs that are available. And a reset system would also ask you, our donors, our members, to share the risks. Perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. We know there is a major risk that we all share when we're empowering local actors. So let's work with them so they can manage funds effectively and responsibly. And we gotta get out of our own bubble. I've been in so many rooms where people will label, "Oh, that's a humanitarian. Oh, she doesn't understand 'cause she's not a humanitarian. She does da, da, da, da. That is a not helpful way of dividing the world and approaching the issues. We have to think broadly about who is a partner here. In our world, the diaspora is a key partner. In fact, we'll be busy trying to figure out our own solutions and raising money, and the diaspora is way ahead of us providing resources, providing a lifeline to communities who are in need. It also means Looking at partners we don't always bring to the table. The faith community, civic leaders, and of course the private sector. The private sector has everything to gain where we stabilize communities that are in crisis. So let's bring those technology companies who work with us on advanced data solutions, who will enable us to use what they do so well, deliver quickly and efficiently into the work we do in the humanitarian space, which means we need to get out of the 1990s and into 2025 and use both AI and analytics that are now available to companies around the world. And finally, real reform, it means that we have to stay true to our principles, the principles of humanitarian law, of international protection, the protection of human rights. We cannot do any of that if our first impulse is to protect our turf. We need creative, collective action. We need to focus on new incentives. We need to help people in the long term in efficient and effective ways. And our organizations, we are well positioned to truly meet this crisis head on and at scale. And now the world is asking us to take on the issue of reform head on and at scale, and we are up to the challenge. We will serve those who need us most, but we can't do it alone. We need every single one of you in this room. I don't care if you're a donor, I don't care if you're a member state or you're a member of civil society. We need every single one of you in this room to join us to serve the world's most vulnerable. So thank you very much.

I thank the Director General of IOM for asserting that the humanitarian response cannot substitute for diplomacy. Member states cannot abandon communities in crisis, leaving the largest generation of youth in history vulnerable to radicalization. We must set aside turf battles, stay true to our principles, align with the needs of those we serve, and work together to address gaps and inefficiencies while ensuring Member States fund both the vulnerable and their transitions into the future. I would now like to turn to Ms. Kelly Clements, Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees. Kelly. Current humanitarian coordination mechanisms are buckling under the weight of protracted complex crisis. What new leadership models or decision-making structures should we be piloting now? And what authority and roles are we willing to delegate and recognize to make them work?

Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Vice President, and greetings to everyone in the room. It's really a privilege to be on this panel. And before I start talking about coordination and leadership models, yes, yes, yes. wholeheartedly agree with what my fellow panelists have already offered this morning. It's the time, it's the moment. Yesterday, we opened our UNHCR Standing Committee, and I recognized some faces in the room who were there yesterday with us. And some of that, the crisis of the moment, Madam Vice President, was as palpable there as it is this morning. and with what the President of ECOSOC said, along with the Emergency Relief Coordinator and yourselves, this is the time for this conversation. We don't have more time to waste. And I think to get to the point that the Director General, my friend Amy, said, it is something that we need to do, must do, but we have to do it with all of you. The system is overstretched. It's underfunded. And it is operating in an increasingly hostile environment, which we also heard from some of our eloquent speakers earlier today. As Tom said, it's time to regroup, to reform, and create the space for renewal. And we can do it, again, with you. We put out one of our flagship reports last week. the Global Trends Report, which talks about forced displacement around the world. Many of you have seen it. You've asked us questions about it. You know what its contents are, and none of it surprised you. We are still at record levels of people on the move for war, conflict, persecution, and other issues. Sudan, unfortunately, surpassed Syria as the largest displacement crisis globally, with 14.3 million people uprooted. A staggering figure that continues to rise, despite something that perhaps was not read as closely in that same report, that we had 10 million returns last year, 10 million returns. 1.6 million refugees, which is the highest return figure in over 20 years. That's a very sad statistic, but I think with what you've heard on the panel this morning, with the lack of political solutions, not surprising. And the resources on which we depend to be able to respond are just not keeping pace, which is why, of course, this reset is so important. We support it fully. We support the drive to reduce duplication and bureaucracy, not just to streamline for its own sake, but to shift energy and shift resources to what matters most to deliver protection and aid more effectively to people in need. In line with Tom's call, this means being bold in rethinking what we do, how we do it, and who should lead. Now, to get to what many outside this room would not spend one moment of their day or night thinking about, which is clusters, it means simplification. And of course, we fully, fully subscribe to collapsing a reduction of clusters from 11 to 8. And if you want to know more about those configurations, we'll be available at the lunch break, and we can talk about those. I do want to reassure, because one place where we take particular leadership is on the global protection cluster, and there's been a lot of discussion about whether we're going to lose very key focus of our work on gender-based violence, on child protection, on other areas that have had more visibility in previous structures. The answer to that is no, we will not. Those same voices, those same experts, those same mandates of other agencies to bring that expertise forward will be visible and will be present where it matters most, which is in these operational contexts. But we also have to bear in mind that there isn't going to be a cookie cutter approach. There's not going to be a one size fits all approach to the way that we organize ourselves at the operational level. Another source of conversation, as we've been talking about the reset, has been the refugee coordination model. This was something that the Tom's predecessor's predecessor and our High Commissioner's predecessor talked quite a bit about quite some time ago, and we refreshed the refugee coordination model last year to make it fit for purpose. Now, this doesn't mean that that needs to be the model used in every context, and one of the things that we have certainly committed together with OCHA and with under the emergency relief coordinators leadership is to look at those 16 areas where we are have mixed coordination mechanisms where there may be internal displacement with refugees, and how do we review those countries and those contexts and make sure that our coordination systems lash up, that they align, that in some cases they are integrated, or in some cases one replaces the other, and we are committed to do that in places from Ethiopia to Colombia. The issues related to coordination and coordination itself, we always have to do this. And then coming back to Amy's point that this we have to do it in close partnership with humanitarian and development actors and in different contexts. And this is where we see some differences now with what we talk about in humanitarian context, with the broader context that Amy described on the solution side. And this we cannot lose sight of. Some of those mixed situations, we've also found models that work. And here I want to come to the one that IOM and UNHCR champion, and that is related to Venezuelans in the Americas. And they do hold potential for other situations. Now, when it comes to leadership. Coordination reforms also have to be matched with robust leadership models. No one would question that. It's key. Not only individual leadership, however, but shared leadership, models that are flexible, grounded in comparative advantage, as was said earlier, and responsive to those diverse operational contexts. As you mentioned in your question, Madam Vice President, we also must be ready to delegate to trust one another's mandates and roles, to work towards coordination models that serve people, not structures. And at the country level, humanitarian and resident coordinators play, of course, a vital role in leading, convening, steering collective action while preserving the space for agencies to deliver on their own specific mandates and accountabilities. And this balance is really essential, especially in those complex and those protracted settings. where refugee and displacement dynamics are often at risk of being overlooked. The leadership of RCs and HCs, which has also been a discussion point very intensively over the last weeks and months, must be supported with the political backing of all of us, of course, but also at the country level and by all of you, and the tools to build inclusive and accountable responses. Now, a lot of discussion has already taken place this morning on what is near and dear to all of our hearts, and that is localization. We heard powerful words this morning in the opening session, including from Safi, who said it is something in terms of the leadership that we provide that needs to be reinforced. not as recipients, but as responders and leaders. And we could not agree more. We need to be simpler and we need to be lighter. We need to do more to be accountable to the people we serve, and we need to follow, to get to Yagen's point, and include them much more than we do now. This reset is an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to local engagement. local decision-making, and indeed, local power. And we've heard the emergency relief coordinators say this before. What power do we have and what power can we share? Which leads me to the final point, which is on financing. While all of our partners have been affected by drastic funding reductions, we have made a deliberate effort to protect funding to local actors. funding to national NGOs and community-based organizations, regardless of what the funding situation looks like. We've prioritized local actors. I think when it comes to the commitment that IFRC has made to put 75% into local actors, right now we're at 85%. I hope we can keep it there and also at the same levels, but this is something that we share in terms of that kind of commitment. Processes can be burdensome for under-resourced partners, and we need to do better. And all this to just to conclude on efficiency. Efficiency has been the watchword and in some quarters has been seen as the solution. And unfortunately, no amount of reform will on its own, reverse the growing gap between humanitarian need and available funding. Our efficiency actions, of course, are not a panacea for the growing gap, but we have to do more on this too. And you've got the commitment to all of us, whether it's in UN80, it is in the IASC in terms of the humanitarian reset, it's in our own agencies. We have a very, very firm focus on these broader reforms, shared platforms, shared data, shared assessment, shared ways of being able to communicate with you, needs, impact, and so on, and we have to do much, much more. So, Madam Vice President, thank you very much for the opportunity to be able to share a few reflections. We look forward to what's to come, and more importantly, we look forward to your continued support and your commitment, because the stakes are just too high to fail. Thank you.

I thank the Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees. As you said, time is of the essence. The lack of political solutions and resources that are not keeping pace with needs underscore the urgency of the reset. We must reduce duplication, shift focus to what matters most, and be bold in thinking, rethinking our approach. This means simplification, reducing clusters, and bringing expertise forward where it matters the most. Close partnership with humanitarian and development actors is essential. Leadership coordination reforms must be matched with robust leadership models that embrace shared leadership at the local level and with the agency funds and programs with the RC system at the center. I would now like to turn to Ms. Reena Kelani, Chief Executive Officer of Plan International. As an NGO that works specifically with children, what do you want to see from the humanitarian reset? What are the challenges you see?

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Vice President. And thank you to the incredible speakers. I mean, coming at the end, you have a disadvantage, but you also have an advantage. You can complement by plagiarizing the key points that you completely agree with. And so here I'm going to talk about it from the perspective of an international NGO. Plan works in both humanitarian and development, and we're focused on children, particularly girls and youth. And so from that angle, I want to draw out some of the things that my colleagues actually have said on the panel that I think from a child's lens would have the most impact in the reset. And I just want to say how we fully support the emergency relief coordinator's leadership in this and the vision that he's laid out. Firstly, we talk a lot about marginalized communities and people at the center. What does that actually mean, and I think Yagun and others have said it. It actually means starting with listening to what they're asking us for and then acting on that. And the system as it's currently built is not built to do that. Humanitarians, I've been a humanitarian for many years and worked alongside many of you, and I'm really proud to say that we try, but the actual system, including all of us in this room, have not made it fully possible to envisage what we all want. And let me just give an example. The first thing that you hear or you talk to communities about is what they've gone through and then what do they need. And they will always put education in the first three. People are thinking about what they need today to survive, but everyone is always thinking about what is possible tomorrow. And education, as we know, it is not just about providing a structure for children in a chaotic world that they cannot understand anymore. It is protection. It gives them something to look forward to, but it also gives them protection from armed groups, from trafficking, from violence against girls. It is an essential part of the humanitarian response. And yet, education specialists are always one of the last on the truck that goes from capital Um, funding, only 10% of education in any country, and that's at the top, is ever, um, I think we've had one, Bangladesh, where we really insisted, which was a little bit more, but it's always under 10% is funded. And so we do not prioritize what we are being told is important. The other structural issue is the way we coordinate. You cannot direct this from capitals. It needs to be locally done. And there, the discussions are around how we improve coordination and streamline. The important reason to look at our coordination structure is to make sure that we reach people with what they want as well. It's not only about efficiencies. The second area, I just, sorry, just to highlight protection, one in five girls in a humanitarian context is raped. And we've all talked about it. They have experienced sexual violence, and yet protection for girls is only ever funded at 1%. There are complete structural barriers to this that today we need to have serious conversations about how to undo and fix. I want to talk about locally led action, we've all spoken about it. But from a perspective of an NGO where we work very much with local actors, whether they be youth-led groups, women's groups, local government and other local actors, this is key now. There's a lot of barriers, there's a lot of reasons that we come up with, with why that's difficult. It is now time to actually systematically look at those barriers. One is access to financing. We know that's an issue. We need to look at what options there are on the table to reduce that. The second is around the sharing of risk that Amy mentioned. It's a very real one, but now is the moment to really seriously discuss this issue. And there are many others. There are not enough capacity, et cetera, and it'll vary from country to country, but we now need to really look at what in five years' time the world will look like, and it will not look like what our system is today. And local-led action and local leadership is the future. One thing that we can do immediately, and I'm so proud to hear my colleagues talk about how they've protected local organizations that are at the front lines of this funding crash that we're facing. By the end of July, one UN agency has reported 50% of women-led organizations that existed yesterday will not exist. And many of us have put our financing towards the strong organizations. We've spent years working alongside these organizations. They are the leaders. We can't allow them to disappear overnight when we're already saying we're going to overload with too much. We need to protect what's there. The third area, and I only have four, so we can make sure that I keep it short, but the third area I want to talk to, and I'm going to paraphrase an NGO colleague of mine, is making sure that we have a resilient humanitarian ecosystem that focuses on impact. There's a lot of discussions about efficiencies, and we're all doing what we have to do and we need to do. My organization, like everyone else here, is looking at how to stop duplications, redundancies. We're looking very much at technology and how we move forward in a cost-effective way, all to make sure that most of the money that we are given goes to local-led action or to the local communities that we are there to serve. I will say that partnerships, structural reform is always complicated, but there is so much that my colleagues have talked about that we will do. Our unique advantages coming together in partnership, and we as an NGO are in discussions with several NGOs on how we actually share our resources, how when one is better at one thing, we come in and complement what they do, How if they're in one country and servicing, we don't necessarily need to do it. Perhaps we support what they're doing. Those active discussions are happening now. They're not easy, but there are some very simple things we can certainly move forward and go to our financiers as coalitions. And in terms of a resilient ecosystem, everyone's referred to it. This ecosystem exists of the UN, international NGOs, locally led actors, and even at times, you know, there are government institutions that that need to be considered. Every part of that ecosystem needs to be part of the thinking on the reset and included as as an actor. We all have complementary roles to play, and we need to make sure we factor that in as we reset the system. And lastly, Madam Vice-President, I just want to go back to what all my colleagues started with or ended with, and that is the issue of holding the line on international humanitarian law. And I'm really proud of recent statements that my United Nations colleagues have made and that they have been very forceful in red lines. There are red lines. But it requires all of us. And there's nothing in the humanitarian system that we're going to fix, that we're going to be better at, that we're going to deliver more of, that is ever going to fix the fundamental problem. And this is a political crisis that we have. We, on our part, are learning how to speak better. We're not talking in echo chambers anymore. I've seen a lot of the narrative come out explaining to people who don't understand us what we're talking about, and we will help support to do that. So thank you. And I just, I want to bring it back to the children that my organization exists for the reason we exist. If today we don't get this right, child's rights today that are at risk means that tomorrow stability, peace, security is at risk. So thank you. And I look forward to the conversation.

I thank the Chief Executive Officer of Plan International for her remarks. Rina has told us that education in humanitarian context isn't just about providing structure to children in chaotic situations. It's about protection from our groups and fostering agency. And this cannot be directed from capitals. It must be locally led. She also reminded us to stress that one in five girls in humanitarian context faces sexual violence. Local leadership is the future and we must protect women-led organizations, share resources and complement our efforts. We will now hear from the discussants for this panel who will react to what we just heard and share their assessment on current challenges to the humanitarian landscape and solutions. I now would like to turn to His Excellency, Dominic Stillhart, Ambassador and Head of Humanitarian Aid at the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, SDC, for your reflections and remarks. The floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Ms. Vice President, Excellencies, colleagues, distinguished panelists. And very importantly, dear Noor, Amjad and Sahar, thank you very much for being with us today. Let me start with a simple question. Why are we here? What is humanitarianism truly about? It is about people. It is about engaging with communities. And it is about the value of humanity. And yet, too often, the international humanitarian system becomes preoccupied with itself. We have seen many reform agendas and promising initiatives, especially in response to the current funding crisis. But instead of transforming our approach, we repeatedly fall back into familiar patterns of talking reform and doing more of the same. If we are serious about change and putting people at the center, we must give up something, as Ambassador Ray told us so eloquently this morning. We must let go of power and control. To be very practical, what does that mean? How do we go about this? It means building humanitarian responses around people's priorities, not institutional blueprints. It means working from the ground up, not from top down. Simple in principle, but difficult in practice, as we all know. And yet, this approach must shape every stage of the humanitarian cycle, planning, implementation and accountability. On planning, humanitarian response planning must go beyond participation. It must be localized, pragmatic and driven by context. We need a simplified humanitarian program cycle focused on protection outcomes and grounded in the priorities of affected communities. And again, I've heard a lot of agreement around some of these principles, but how do we actually get there? I think that is the question that we need to ask ourselves. By drastically reducing the complexity, if not abolish the cluster system, I'm not convinced that the reduction from 11 to 8 clusters is going to do the trick, unless clusters are not rolled out everywhere by default. And we apply, as both you, Tom, and Jagan, you said again today, we apply the principle of as local as possible and as international as necessary. We also need to shift operational planning to regional and local levels. Local actors should not just be consulted, they must lead the response. Second, on implementation, humanitarian coordinators must have significantly more oversight of programming decisions, funding flows and managed pooled funds effectively. That also puts responsibility on us as donors. We must channel significantly more funding through pooled funds, including country-based, uh, pooled funds. But even more importantly, local actors must have direct and predictable access to funding. They cannot just be implementing partners of the international system. We would like to see at least 70% of country-based pool funds go directly to local organizations. And we donors, we must learn to engage directly with civil society-led pool funds that start emerging everywhere. Third, on accountability, listening once is not enough. Accountability means continuous dialogue with those we serve at every stage. Let us make national civil society boards and community-led assessments standard practice. These mechanisms should inform humanitarian coordinated decision-making on an ongoing basis, not just during planning cycles. And finally, We need to nurture an enabling ecosystem. To localize planning, shift power in implementation and embed accountability, we need strong enabling ecosystems. That means not only clear policy commitments, but also platforms that foster trust, coordination and shared learning. Here in Geneva, we are part of such an ecosystem. This city may not be the center of humanitarian response, but it is the central backbone of humanitarian action. With its unique concentration of operational agencies, diplomatic missions, legal expertise, and multilateral networks, Geneva supports what happens on the ground. From access negotiations and anticipatory tools to reliable data and inclusive dialogue. The goal is not to centralize, but to support a system in which global capacities complement local leadership. Ultimately, we must trust. Trust in local leadership, trust in the communities we serve, and most of all, trust in humanity. So let me close where I began. How do we bring humanity back to the center of humanitarian action? By shifting power, by staying grounded, and by remembering for who we work. Thank you very much.

I thank the head of humanitarian aid at the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation for his comments and questions. I now turn to Mr. Poposki, Director General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations, ECHO. Director General Poposki, thank you for being with us today. From a donor perspective, which are the most immediate and transformative reforms actions and what bold leadership decisions are needed to make that humanitarian reset vision a reality?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. An inclusive, sustainable, and truly transformative humanitarian reset should be strongly rooted in the respect of international humanitarian and human rights law, humanitarian principles, and the centrality of protection and values of solidarity, humanity, and equality. As we see in many of today's crises, there is alarming violations of international humanitarian law, threatening not only those trapped in conflict, but the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian response. As donors, our role must be to reinforce adherence to the international humanitarian law by supporting robust monitoring accountability mechanism and diplomacy aimed at securing respect for humanitarian norms. We must also empower humanitarian actors to operate safely and ensure that assistance reaches civilians impartially without discrimination and without being hindered by political or military agendas. Bold actions need to be taken to reform the humanitarian coordination Impartial, independent, cross-sectoral and people-centered needs assessments lie at the heart of effective coordination. Without an accurate and timely understanding of what affected populations need and where those needs are the greatest, the response risks being inefficient or even harmful. That requires strong, impartial, independent leaders with sound humanitarian experience, those who are able to foster trust and collaboration among diverse stakeholders, including donors and governments, international agencies, local organizations, and crucially, the communities affected by crisis. True leadership is inclusive, transparent, and accountable. It elevates local voices, integrates the knowledge into planning and decision making, and values collaboration over competition. In an increasingly complex and fragmented humanitarian Landscape where crisis overlap and resources are stretched, concerted action is, is needed to advance on the efficiency agenda. This means investing in locally led responses, prioritizing in innovative funding mechanisms that can effectively deliver humanitarian assistance such as, uh, quality, efficient, accountable, multipurpose cash assistance, harnessing the transformative impact, um, of strategic supply chains. and the, um, and the sharing or pooling of, of services and operational enablers. Enhancing the efficiency of humanitarian action demands both leadership commitment to coordinate efforts that combine short term relief with long term development and peace initiatives to ensure that humanitarian aid is a foundation for, uh, future resilience, fragile context highlight the urgency of this integrated approach and the need to strengthen coordination, uh, with other stakeholders, including financial institutions, private sector, and local actors, thank you very much.

I thank the Director General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations, ECHO, for his comments and questions. I now give the floor to Her Excellency Fancy Kipchek Moi, Permanent Representative of Kenya to the United Nations Office at Geneva, for her reflections. Excellency, the floor is yours.

Thank you so much. Vice President, Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, I'm very pleased to join you at this dialogue and to share our reflection on the ongoing humanitarian reset. This also complements Kenya's engagement on the topic here in Geneva, and thank you for inviting us. I'd like to share some five points. The first one is the objective of humanitarian action must be clear. The essence of a humanitarian action, which is to save lives, must always be very clear to all actors involved. That clarity of objective must then guide engagements, processes, budgetary allocations, designation of actors, timelines, and partnerships. The objective on saving lives must supersede a focus on perpetrating a system. The second point is Actually, in tandem with what one of the panelists already said, it was Kelly Clement who said there's need to focus on the context specific. The specific context ought to guide the kind of humanitarian action taken. While lessons may be borrowed from one setting to another, it's crucial to adapt a response to the specific context in order to possibly amplify and have a more impactful humanitarian action. The third point that I want to really bring is the clarity on actors. I think we all appreciate that the humanitarian architecture has over the years grown quite significantly. With that evolution, it has also been a scene where multiple humanitarian actors, be they organizations or persons, large numbers may not often imply efficiency or positive transformative impact. I reset therefore must provide clarity on the aspects of humanitarian action to be undertaken and the specific actors involved. While there is an endeavor to undertake localization, there must be clarity on who a local actor is or is not. Ultimately, it's crucial to ensure that the national and local systems are strengthened to be able to cope with shocks and emergencies, particularly those with constitutional mandates to provide certain services and public goods to populations. Humanitarian action, therefore, should be with national actors and not for national actors. Alongside this is the importance of efficient leadership, coordination and action among the actors. The fourth point is the need for clarity on transition to stability. Most crises humanitarians are addressing are protracted, some of them running for more than 20 years. It's crucial that the humanitarian reset is clear on the modalities to address protracted crisis as well as emerging or new crisis. However, this distinction may at times bring blurry when new crisis take place within protracted crisis. It's nevertheless essential to map when the necessary transition from relief to development ought to be made. A lack of this transition risk prolonged, humanitarian situations, therefore increasing the fragility and entrapment in a state constantly dependent on humanitarian assistance. It's also very crucial to emphasize the temporary nature of humanitarian action to liberate communities from protracted dependence on assistance towards development and independence. My last point is actually on the issue of innovation. A humanitarian reset with innovation at its core is essential to ensure that the necessary adjustments are made as and when necessary. It ought to be a learning and adjusting engagement. This will also position the material architecture to adaptation to emerging trends. It will also strengthen its resilience to any disruptions. The material architecture must also rethink its financing models and explore alternative financing options that are less vulnerable to shocks, including political shocks. Thank you.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Kenya at the UN Office at Geneva for her remarks. I would like to turn now to our moderator, Mr. Conyn **** who will provide some brief reflection. Jeremy, the floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Ambassador. And it is really a privilege and a pleasure to be here with many wise and seasoned colleagues who've made such phenomenal points. I want to start with, I think, where many people have already touched on just the brutal difficulty of the past few months and of watching our sector be convulsed by these debilitating funding cuts and the very abrupt and reactive and sweeping reductions to core humanitarian services that that are ensuing as a result of that. And, you know, I think personally, for many of us as well, the mass layoffs of many colleagues and people that we have worked with and known for for decades and the expertise and the capacity that the sector is losing as a result of that. And it's very it's hard to be strategic under circumstances like that. And so I really commend the IASC principles for making a genuine and important effort to be strategic, to look beyond the reactive immediate question of how do we bring our bottom lines down to the resources that we now have available to us, and to kind of look beyond what is being dismantled right now towards what needs to be preserved, what needs to be protected, and ultimately what needs to be to be built. And, you know, the reality is that as a as a humanitarian sector now, we have to make very hard choices about how to do less with less. Tom, you've articulated this this goal of saving as many lives as possible with the available resources and. As we've heard from a number of the panelists, from Ambassador Stillhart, from Director General Pope, from Ambassador Wray, and from others, the success of that is not necessarily a foregone conclusion. Change is not easy, and sometimes, you know, the -- all of us collectively in this room, as Amy reminded us, can be part of the obstacle there, and we need to ensure that we are going to be part of the solution. It's very heartening to hear the alignment in these remarks on the way forward, that we must prioritize local leadership, particularly women's leadership. We must hold the line on preserving international humanitarian law, humanitarian values, and humanitarian principles. And we must be quite ruthless about reform and streamlining and efficiency. I do want to just read two quotes. And I'll tell you what they're from after I've read them. Quote one, we must do better at utilizing and working alongside local structures. With nothing but good intentions, the international community descends into crises in enormous numbers and its activities too often leave the very communities we are there to help on the sidelines. We must actively strengthen, not undermine, these local actors. And we must translate good intentions into meaningful reform. The fact that we continue to struggle to turn these principles into practice demands that we set about on our shared agenda with courage and commitment to see the process through. Those are quotes from the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition report 20 years ago. As Ambassador Stillhart reminded us, these are not totally new challenges to us. And I think the question for all of us, and I think what we need to challenge ourselves on, is how will we ensure that we can make it different this time? And I think we can. And I think you're hearing a commitment, and we're seeing a commitment in the comments today towards that. I will just share a few thoughts and reflections on some things that I think we must get right so that we do not when two years from now, we do not look back and say, well, the system is 30% to 40% smaller, but otherwise, we're basically doing the same thing. How do we do that? We must take a really hard look at how money flows. And it's heartening to hear so much discussion and so much energy around local funding and around pooled funding, and particularly the convergence of those two, using a greater use of pooled funding to ensure money flows directly to local actors. I think we need to be frank with ourselves that as we As we work to shift power and as large major institutions shift power to local actors, that does mean stepping back and that may mean some further shrinking. As we go about that, it's also crucial that we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, that what is handed over and what is shifted to local actors does not undermine the really crucial core mandates and comparative advantages of our large global humanitarian institutions. It's very important that member states and donors, all of you in this room, be part of leading this change. The challenges and the agenda that are being contemplated both through the reset and through the UN80 process will require political champions. And this is a time of great political turmoil in the world. There is not always a lot of unity on major issues, and I think we will need it here. And then I will close with just echoing what a number of other speakers have said, the importance of upholding the centrality of humanitarian principles. And I think for all of us who have worked as humanitarian practitioners, what we know is when we say the principles, Those are not a religious creed, they're not an ethical commitment, they are a tool. Humanitarian principles are a tool for delivering safe and effective aid in contested environments to those who need it. And so when we talk about upholding those, we're not upholding those simply because it is a sort of ethical right thing to do, we're upholding those because we know the damage that happens when we lose those and when we abandon those. And we are seeing many reminders of that in our world today, as we heard from some of our local civil society colleagues in the opening session. I will stop there. Thank you.

Thank you, Jeremy, for your reflections. I now open the floor for comments or questions. Delegations wishing to request the floor should indicate their intention by raising their delegation's nameplate. I would like to remind delegations to strictly observe the agreed time limits of two minutes for intervention by individual delegations. To ensure proper interpretations, delegations are asked to speak at a normal pace and to provide a written copy of their statements to the Secretariat at least two hours in advance of delivery. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Australia.

Vice President and all the speakers today for this. important discussion. The humanitarian system is at a critical juncture with an increasing number of protracted conflicts, more frequent and intense disasters, but fewer resources for action. We also see serious challenges for the implementation of international humanitarian law, essential for the principled, safe and effective delivery of humanitarian assistance. Meeting these challenges requires collective action. Australia welcomes the IASC's leadership of the Humanitarian Reset and supports the bold reforms proposed, particularly efforts to streamline structures that increase efficiency and better deliver for those facing the most severe humanitarian needs. Australia supports the Reset's focus on localisation and increased participation of local actors in coordination and decision-making. We see opportunity for pooled funds to increasingly support localisation, learning from the breadth of experience across existing pooled funds to achieve impact and efficiency. As a donor, Australia is committed to supporting greater use of pooled funds and multi-year flexible funding backed with robust accountability and risk management mechanisms. As the humanitarian system is reimagined, Australia emphasises the importance of inclusive humanitarian action. Our ability to reach those in most severe need in crisis and disasters is critical, both to delivering on the humanitarian principles and to improving efficiency. Australia will continue to support the meaningful participation of women, children, LGBTQIA+ people and people with disability in humanitarian action. Reform efforts should ensure no region is left behind. Australia's region, the Indo-Pacific, is home to complex displacement crises and disaster and climate risks. The Myanmar and Rohingya crises require continued international support while recognising the critical role of local humanitarian actors. Australia supports continued prioritisation of climate-responsive and preparedness initiatives in our region, including anticipatory action and early warning system, which both saves lives and reduces the costs of responding. Australia will defend the normative role of the UN to ensure access and protection for all humanitarian actors. Humanitarian and broader UN reforms must align the peace and security and development functions of the UN to address the root causes of humanitarian need. We stand ready to contribute to a streamlined and efficient humanitarian system that puts crisis-affected people at the center. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Australia, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil, followed by the United Kingdom and Egypt.

Thank you, Madam Vice President. Thank you, panelists and discussants, Mr. Moderator. I'm going to leave aside my pre-cooked intervention, Madam President, in order to concentrate on a question through you to Mr. Fletcher. We have heard a lot of attempts, and we agree that there is a need to adjust the spending and maybe speak about increased local partnership, relocation, all of this I think is very good and we agree with that. But we still witness, for example, the fact that 90% of the displacement occurs and is actually faced by developing countries. We also saw in October 23 an attempt while Brazil was actually presiding over the Security Council to come up with the humanitarian pause, because ceasefire was not allowed to be mentioned. And we did a lot of consultation, went through a big exercise on preventive diplomacy, but took one country to veto that humanitarian pause. And thereafter, we've witnessed 55,000 and over civilians and children included being killed and the starvation being used as a weapon. a war weapon. So the question is, are we doing enough, all of us, actors, member states, civil society, in the political level in order to prevent that to happen? Amy Pope mentioned the fact that we have a lot of displacement due to natural causes, which is true, but also, and still number one factor is man-made conflicts. So it would not be wise to maybe increase our pressure, not only on the managerial side on the short term, but actually on the longer term. And we have had enough time since decolonization to improve and update the system. We have not managed to do that. Are the conditions now terrible enough so that it will be conducive to that reform? Are we going to be able to tackle these political issues or not? Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil for his questions and comments. I now give the floor to United Kingdom, followed by Egypt and Portugal.

Madam Vice President, distinguished panelists, excellencies, colleagues, thank you, and thank you, ERC, for your work to bring us together through the humanitarian reset with a focus on a more locally led, effective, and efficient humanitarian system, one that continues to stand up strongly for the rights and protection of affected people. The UK strongly backs these efforts along with those of your IASC principles. And looking around the panel today, it's been a really stellar panel, I have to say. We were excited to see so much collaboration, and we look forward to the moment when you actually complete each other's sentences. We think we're getting there, but there's still a little way to go. As you say, ERC, regrouping, renewing and reforming is not an option, it's a necessity. The current architecture is unsustainable and we must use this moment. We must use it to deliver a system that is better serves the affected populations. Local humanitarian organizations, more in touch with local needs and contextual realities in the lead. The UN delivering only where it must, and humanitarians as the actors of last resort, working side by side with and handing over to development actors, and eventually, hopefully, also finishing their sentences. Tomorrow's International Day for the Elimination of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence reminds us that the protection of women and girls is at the heart of the reset. We must not allow survivors to be silenced, nor to go without essential lifesaving support. It's been important to hear that message again from today's panel. As you have set out, we must approach these changes with energy and with ambition, transforming the shared vision into practical steps. We can seize this opportunity to build an international system that is fit for the future, one that delivers with purpose, with partnerships, and most importantly, with people at its center. Thank you.

I thank the United Kingdom for his remarks. I now give the floor to Egypt, followed by Portugal, and I kindly remind delegations that the microphone will be cut off at the two-minute mark. Egypt, over to you.

Giving me the floor. I would like to begin by commending the efforts of the UN Secretary General and the Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs in advancing the humanitarian reform and in trying to address the serious repercussions of the humanitarian crises. In these challenging times, innovative solutions are more critical than ever. UN20 initiative and the humanitarian reset are both timely and relevant as we navigate the delicate balance between resource limitations and operational effectiveness. We agree, as highlighted by Secretary General Chapa again, on the importance of simplifying our collective efforts and avoiding the creation of complex mechanisms that may result in overlap and inefficiency. And we under score the importance of maintaining a flexible operational structure that enables us to swift recovery and the return to normalcy once conditions improve. We echo what Ms. Clements said, that there is no one-size-fits-all, and we stress the importance of taking into consideration the specificities of different contexts.

I'm afraid I have to move to another speaker because we are running out of time. And as you know, the podium has been replaced as we flow. And so now I give the floor to Portugal to be followed by Mexico and Slovenia. Please keep up to two minutes. Portugal followed by Mexico and Slovenia.

Thank you. Thank you very much. As we face a shrinking humanitarian space and are confronted with a widening funding gap, It's more important than ever to work together and to have this kind of discussions and also to hold the line of human rights and international humanitarian law in a spirit of global solidarity. In this sense, we welcome UNH initiative and humanitarian reset, and we believe that a more proactive stance will be key to any future results. In a context where humanitarian needs are rising faster than available resources, Reinforcing prevention, anticipatory action, and resilience building approaches are essential to protect the communities in the most vulnerable situations and to mitigate the scale of costs of future crisis. Moreover, to better serve affected populations, and here I agree with Ambassador Ray, we work for the people, not for organizations or structures, we need to shift in the mindset Then we need to move from a top down aid delivery to a locally led, rights based and participatory approach, empowering local actors and building the capacity of both NGOs and local authorities in governance. Compliance, strategy and fund management, along with promoting peer monitoring, will enhance local ownership and accountability, having women and girls not only at the center, but also leading the process. We must, however, be mindful of the shrinking humanitarian civic space, and any measures taken should not should not burden local organizations and should not allow for an unsafe operating environment like we heard from Mr. Amjad Shawa from the Palestinian NGO. We must be willing to take risks, simplify and streamline our workflows, but we also expect that you, the UN system, will reduce inefficiencies, duplication, and bureaucracy. I'm confident that this will be the case after listening to Mr. Fletcher and other speakers. The world is changing fast and business as usual.

Thank you very much, the representative of Portugal. So now I give the floor to Mexico to be followed by Slovenia and Guatemala. Mexico, the floor is yours. Two minutes.

Thank you, Vice-President. Mexico believes that the humanitarian system reform must place affected persons at the heart of response, recognising them as active protagonists of change. We express our profound concern at the growing trend towards increased human suffering in multiple armed conflict contexts currently. Given those challenges, it's crucial for humanitarian reform to advance, taking into account three key pillars. First, we agree with the proposal that humanitarian coordinators, in consultation with humanitarian country teams, review their strategies, prioritise action that saves lives and simplify structures to adapt them to each operational context. Local actors who have high knowledge of the ground as well as the trust of their communities should be at the heart of implementation. Second, we agree with the proposal that significant transformative inclusion. The system must guarantee meaningful participation of women, girls, and historically marginalized populations, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, and IDPs throughout all humanitarian cycle stages. Third, unswerving respect for IHL and humanitarian principles. We reaffirm the importance of guaranteeing at all times, all places, security and protection for humanitarian personnel. Their work saves lives and is an essential pillar of any response. Thus, we recall that all parties to a conflict have an obligation under IHL to enable and facilitate access for them without restrictions to humanitarian assistance. Deliberately obstructing access can constitute an international crime and should be investigated and sanctioned by multilateral competent mechanisms. Mexico reiterates its commitment to humanitarian system reform, which places in the centre humanitarian principles, human dignity, bolsters local leadership and guarantees protection of those who make humanitarian assistance possible. Thank you.

Muchas gracias, Mexico. And now I give the floor to Slovenia, to be followed by Guatemala and Sudan.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the panelists for all your insights. It is great that you have a vision and determination I commend you for that, and you have Slovenia's full support. If time permits, I would like to highlight three fundamentals of Slovenia's position. First, we should not seek to reform the foundations of the humanitarian system, but in a way return to its principal values. Humanitarian reset must be upon the reaffirmed commitment to multilateralism, international law, human rights, and humanitarian principles. Second, as we consider reprioritization, we must not lose sight of differentiated needs across social groups and geographic areas. Women, men, children, older persons, and persons with disabilities each face distinct challenges in conflicts and humanitarian crises. Linguistic barriers, cultural cues, or traditions may all impact efficiency of the humanitarian response. As the representatives of the NGO of, from Afghanistan said earlier this morning, we must retain awareness that the affected populations are not only recipients of aid, but essential members of the humanitarian team. Localization was stressed so many times today. Also from all the panelists, the significance of localization cannot be overstated. And third, I heard Tom saying we should stop talking too much about nexuses, but the triple nexus must be the core element of the humanitarian approach. And Slovenia appreciates and welcomes the central coordinating role of the UN and its agencies and will continue to advocate and support their lifesaving work on the ground. Thank you.

I thank Slovenia, and now I give the floor to Guatemala, to be followed by Sudan, and I'm afraid that will end up today's first round of intervention, so Guatemala and then Sudan.

Thank you, Vice-President. This is a decisive moment for the international community at a time marked by multiple humanitarian difficulties. We face a profound crisis of legitimacy, both moral and in terms of financing. With reduced resources, we must regroup and we must renew both at local and global levels, find new sources of financing. I'm certain that with political will, we can continue to serve those who most need it. In that context, we urge all parties to avoid any form of impeding humanitarian access without any distinction. We urge you to fully follow up on international obligations, since it is imperative to guarantee swift, safe, coordinated and sustainable access for humanitarian actors, consistent with the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence. Guatemala reaffirms its belief that no political, military or strategic interest can justify the use of hunger as a weapon of war, or the instrumentalization of humanitarian aid or a collective punishment of entire populations. These practices must cease immediately. We recognize the actions carried out by the humanitarian coordination multilateral mechanisms, in particular the central role of OCHA and of the Red Cross Red Crescent, which is why it is crucial to give them the resources, protection and operational space that they need to deliver on their task. We firmly believe that those kinds of efforts contribute to closing the gap between norms and their implementation on the ground and enhance the shared responsibility to preserve humanitarian principles from growing threats. We urge all those here now to renew firmly their commitment to protecting human life in the midst of suffering. Humanitarian assistance cannot be a hostage to indifference. It must be a tool towards building a culture of sustainable, lasting peace. Thank you.

I've thanked the representative of Guatemala, and now I give the floor to Sudan. That's the last speaker.

Thank you. President, first I want to thank the panel, the moderator, as well as the speakers. I thank you for all your efforts towards reaching just, equitable solutions. Humanitarian workers increasingly are in need and for positive ends, but at the same time we are witnessing attempts internationally carried towards very harmful ends, which leads to an aggravation of humanitarian crises. Sudan has gone through, sadly, a military coup which destroyed the Sudanese capital and numerous towns in my country. We've witnessed waves of extremely grave waves of migration coupled with economic migration that my country already suffered from. It's necessary now to address the root causes of humanitarian problems that we face. The militia who support must cease their activities. They must come into line with providing a sustainable humanitarian response. Secondly, we need to associate the needs for justice with humanitarian assistance. Thirdly, we need to ensure that we combat impunity. Fourthly, we must prioritise our objectives and address the main reasons behind the disastrous humanitarian situation that we're going through currently in Sudan.

The vision of labor in between the and me was that she was a good policeman and a bad policeman. And so I just want to say I'm very sorry that not all the Requests can be met to take the floor. It was just impossible to hear from all those who requested to speak due to the time constraints. I hope to hear from you in the remaining discussion of the segment, especially in the panel discussion number four, which is connected with this one. And now, on behalf of all the panelists, I give the floor for one minute to Tom Fletcher.

Okay, I'll be fast. Huge thanks for the solidarity and support. We hear it loud and clear, but more importantly, we'll pass it on to our colleagues who are out there on the humanitarian front lines. To our colleague from Brazil, are we doing enough collectively to defend humanitarian law? Not enough. We can do much, much more. Thank you for your commitment to all of that. This is a journey, not a destination, change, and not all of us will get there. Yagannath has announced my imminent retirement, and he's right to do that. Because we have to imagine a system that doesn't involve all of us. If we don't have that vision, we are not going to get there. We are well into now reform and regroup. We need your help on renew. There's a lot of work ahead to really rethink how we run this structure, how to be, to Jeremy's point, to be strategic at a point when we're in a phase of reform, how to make sure that we are about execution, not just about ideas, that we're about saving lives, not just a system. They're about action, not just architecture. And ultimately, they're about people, not institutions. And we hear you on that. We're committed to it. And we thank you for your support. Thank you.

Thank you so much for all the panelists for the engagement and all of you to take part in the discussions. And Mr. Moderator, of course, just to remind you that during the lunch times, at lunch break, we have a side events. And today discussion in the side event will focus on protecting healthcare against attacks, collective responsibility. That's in room 21. And I encourage you all to attend. And that means the council will reconvene this afternoon at 3:00 PM in this conference room to begin its general discussion of agenda item nine. So the meeting is adjourned by now. Thank you so much.