2026 ECOSOC Humanitarian Affairs Segment - Economic and Social Council, 31st Plenary Meeting

Excellencies. Excellencies, distinguished delegates. We're going to begin our meeting. I call to order the 31st meeting of the Economic and Social Council at the Humanitarian Affairs segment of its 2026 session. I now invite the Council to continue its consideration of Agenda Item 9, entitled Special Economic, Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Assistance. Excellencies, distinguished participants, We shall now begin our first high-level panel, which is on the topic funding with impact. Humanitarian organizations are currently operating under unprecedented financial pressure. Globally, humanitarian suffering continues to intensify across conflict and climate-affected settings. As of early 2026, 239 million people are estimated to require humanitarian assistance, yet resources to meet those needs are contracting sharply. As of early May, only around 22% of global humanitarian requirements had been funded, leaving a gap of more than $25 billion. This funding shortfall has forced the humanitarian system into a situation of hyper-prioritization. The 87 Million Lives Plan reflects this reality, a focused life-saving effort under conditions of severe financial constraint. Even with this prioritization, the gap remains profound. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Underfunding is therefore no longer an abstract— abstract problem. It is translating into real operational trade-offs with immediate consequences for civilians and for the sustainability of humanitarian action. At the same time, humanitarian organizations continue to adapt. The Humanitarian Reset, the UN80 Initiative, and broader reform efforts are supporting initiatives to strengthen coordination, reduce duplication, and reinforce country-level leadership. There is also growing emphasis on supporting local actors, anticipatory action, and more collective approaches. However, operational adaptation cannot substitute for adequate financing. Flexible and predictable funding remains essential to sustaining principled humanitarian action. This discussion is also expected to reflect differing perspectives regarding financing responsibilities, prioritization, and approaches to burden sharing. We'll now begin with our high-level panel, Panel 3. As I said, the topic is funding with impact, financing humanitarian action to deliver results in support of people in need. It's my pleasure to welcome our distinguished panelists. And we'll hear our presentations from our distinguished panelists. I would like to turn first to His Excellency Fergal Meaton, Permanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations in New York. And my question to you, sir, is the following: What approaches are most important in sustaining principled and effective humanitarian responses under current conditions? Excellency, you have the floor. Thank you.

Muchas gracias, Ambassador, and apologies for being here a little bit late. I was keeping Spanish or Irish hours rather than UN hours. Just in addressing this point, we want to return to the very fundamentals of principled humanitarian action, which Ireland continues to underscore in everything we do in this field. Our humanitarian aid is provided on the basis of need and need alone. While we understand the imperative to hyper-prioritise and focus on life-saving assistance, we must at the same time, where possible, build the resilience of communities to themselves withstand future shocks, thereby saving people today and tomorrow. We believe that maintaining high levels of quality funding is the best way to continue to support the humanitarian ecosystem as it adapts in these very, very challenging times. This allows organisations the flexibility to be be agile, to pivot to where needs are greatest, and to better support local organisations. Ireland sees the importance of flexible, predictable, multi-year funding which can better enable locally-led humanitarian action, support coordination, and sometimes help to drive a nexus approach. Coupled with this, we must recognise that if we cannot reach people in need, then we cannot support them. so we must continue to back humanitarian diplomacy and access negotiations with financing and with political will. We must also uphold international humanitarian law. Ireland's strength, or we believe and we hope that our strength, is that we continue to stay the course, providing early predictable funding to a range of partners and through a range of modalities. We've also worked to play a key role in supporting humanitarian system reform. Thank you. One way of doing this was through our chairing of the OCHA pooled fund working group and the CERF advisory group. We focused on advancing the role of both groups in the humanitarian reset while strengthening complementarity and driving forward the locally-led humanitarian assistance agenda. We are conscious that local actors have a stronger understanding of the operating context in which they work, including the challenge of operating in highly politicised and indeed conflict contexts. They can access areas where we, as international actors and donor governments, often cannot, and they often have a better understanding of the social dynamics at the community level. Over the last year, we have ensured a very strong focus on increased and more meaningful participation of local actors in the governance of the pooled funds, and deeper discussion on localization across the changing humanitarian sector landscape. Pooled funds are at the heart of the humanitarian reset. They're not the only modality. They represent the potential for collective action designed to enhance efficiency, effectiveness, and better coordination. Pooled funds must continue to commit to delivering humanitarian assistance that is as local as possible, as international as necessary. And in this regard, they can be seen as a true test of the humanitarian reset in action. In addition, Ireland continues to see the importance of pushing the boundaries on innovation and impact, supporting advancements in anticipatory action, cash delivery, best practice, and research. Anticipatory action has been shown to be more efficient and effective than traditional post-event responses, lessening the impact of crises on communities and allowing for faster recovery and resilience building. The IFRC Start-Ready and OCHA are demonstrating leadership in anticipatory action. Ireland has also endeavoured to be a frontrunner in funding the SERF Climate Action Account, which brings much-needed climate finance for adaptation in the most fragile contexts. In closing, I wish to take a few moments to highlight that during Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union, beginning on the 1st of July, we are committed to maintaining our levels of humanitarian aid and prioritising humanitarian action at the political level. Our overarching Presidency priorities in the humanitarian sphere will focus on our global shared commitment to reach the furthest behind first, while striking a balance with reducing humanitarian need in the longer term. The Irish EU Presidency will maintain a focus on the role of the European Union and its member states as the world's largest humanitarian actor. We will provide a platform for strategic discussions on the role of the EU in the future of humanitarian assistance at a time when the global context for humanitarian action and wider Official Development Assistance (ODA) is shifting radically. We welcome the Joint Communication on Humanitarian Aid released by DG ECHO in May 2026—that's the EU OCHA—and the strategic ambitions and opportunities this communication represents for the sector, the European Union institutions, and for EU member states. We look forward to progressing some of the communications key elements during our Presidency, while steering the adoption of EU Council conclusions on humanitarian aid in the coming months. To conclude, principled humanitarian assistance, advocating for respect for international humanitarian law, protection and humanitarian diplomacy, and climate-smart humanitarian action will be key priorities for Ireland at European Union and UN levels in into the future. Thank you.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Ireland, Fergal Meaton. I now turn to Ms. Natalie Vilgrain, General Coordinator of Mary Jane. From a local NGO perspective, what are the consequences of underfunding? Ms. Vilgrain, you have the floor.

Your Excellency Ambassador Gomez, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, colleagues, and partners, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to bring the perspective of a local woman-led organization from Haiti to this important discussion. My name is Nathalie Vilgren, and I serve as General Coordinator of Marie-Jeanne, a young feminist organization providing humanitarian assistance and protection to women and girls and marginalized community affected by violence and crisis in Haiti. Before I speak about funding, budget, and humanitarian system, I would like to tell you about a woman I will call Wosline. Wosline is a Haitian woman in her 30s. Life was already difficult for her as a woman living in a context marked by poverty, insecurity, and inequality. When violence escalate in her community, many people fled. Wozin choose to stay. She believed that remaining in the place where she had grown up would protect her. After that, she knew these men. They were part of her community. She was wrong. Over the course of several months, Wazelynn survived multiple acts of sexual violence committed by the armed men in her community. When she arrived at our organization, she had lost almost everything: her sense of safety, her income, her ability to sleep, and much of her trust in others. One day she told us simply, "I don't want to live anymore."

Thank you.

Like many survivors of sexual violence in Haiti today, Roselyne faced impossible choice. Seeking medical care meant finding transportation she could not afford. Reporting the violence meant exposing herself to retaliation. Attending support session meant sacrificing time she needed to earn money to feed her family. And this is not only Woselin's story. It's the story of thousands of men and— of women and girls across Haiti who seek support from organizations operating in a humanitarian system deeply affected by insufficient and unsustainable funding. What changed Woselin's situation was not a single service. It was access to a coordinated package of support made possible through humanitarian financing, emergency case management, and psychology support. Legal information and cash assistance that allowed her to meet her immediate needs while beginning her recovery. This is what humanitarian action can do when it works. It saves lives like Roseline. Months later, Roseline was no longer coming to us only as a survivor in crisis. She had become an active participant in collective support group. She was rebuilding her life— livelihood. She was helping other women navigate available service and encouraging them to seek support. My organization, Marie-Jeanne, recently conduct research on funding mechanism supporting local women organization in Haiti. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Critical lesson. First, impact require quality, direct, and flexible funding. Survivor do not experience their need in silo. Their needs are interconnected. A woman who survive sexual violence may simultaneously need medical care, mental health support, legal services, safe housing, transportation, food, and income support. Yet funding is often fragmented, forcing organizations to fit people in their project rather than designing service around their reality. Too often humanitarian organizations spend significant time adapting community reality to fit donors' requirements, reporting framework, and rigid funding stream. But humanitarian financing should work the other way around. Humanitarian funding should follow people in need during crisis, not force people in crisis to follow funding priorities. If we are serious about funding resources, we must be designed around people reality, not around the limitation of our system. Second, investing in local leadership, it's not charity. It's one of the most effective strategy available to achieve sustainable and measurable impact. Young feminist organizations and women-led organizations are often the first responders during crisis and the last actors to leave after international attention fades. They possess the trust, knowledge, and relationships necessary to reach communities effectively. Yet, they continue to receive only a fraction of humanitarian funding directly.

Thank you.

In 2025, globally women-led organizations will receive only an estimated 18% of UN country-based pooled funds. Efforts to reset and reform the humanitarian system must reverse the trend of top-down process that marginalizes women-led organizations to cede power to local leaders. Learning from emerging success stories that demonstrate adaptive and responsive approach to funding local organizations and society. Third, recovery does not end when emergency funding ends. In 2021, following the devastating earthquake in southern Haiti, international organization and funding surged, yet only a few months later, many organizations have left the AFEC community while need remained immense.

Thank you.

In a world of hyper-prioritization, we risk losing vulnerable population and the widening gap between needs and available financing. Community need organization that can accompany survivor and family beyond immediate crisis. 6 years later, organization like Marie-Jeanne continue to help, accompany survivors, and strengthen community resilience, but we cannot do so alone. We must see more investment in recovery, peace, and development that meets the needs of community in fragile conflict-affected city— city. Success cannot be measurable only by emergency response indicator. It must also be measurable by whether community are stronger, safer and more capable of shaping their own future. If we truly want humanitarian financing to deliver results, we must move beyond counting activities and start investing in outcomes. We must remember that we are investing in people, not numbers, and we must invest not only in services, but in dignity and care for all. For Wosline and for thousands of women and girls who live in future, that are shaped by the choice we make today, even when they may never know our name. Thank you so much.

I thank the General Coordinator of Mary Jan. I next give the floor to Ms. Maya Ramadan, Secretary General of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, who is joining us virtually this afternoon. My question is, how can financing mechanisms better support local leadership and resilience? Ms. Ramadan, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to thank Spain for convening this important discussion and our fellow panelists and co-organizers for their valuable contributions. We would have been pleased to join this discussion in person and we are grateful for the for the flexibility shown in enabling our participation remotely today. For the Syrian Red Crescent, humanitarian financing is not only about how much funding is available, it's about whether funding reaches the right actors at the right time with enough flexibility to respond to people's actual needs. Financing must be structured in a way that allows humanitarian organizations to deliver real impact at the time, at the scale, speed, and with the principled approach required to reduce suffering and save lives. Thank you. In Syria, Syria Air Relief, SRF, turns humanitarian financing into practical life-saving support every day. This has included mobile health services in areas where there is no access to healthcare. This has included a large-scale emergency response in southern Syria that reached more than 51,000 people with medical services and more than 66,000 people with protection activities. While mobilizing nearly 2,000 trucks and distributing more than 231,000 food parcels and 206,000 blankets. It has also included an integrated area-based intervention in Al-Qusayr, where SARC supported 1,400 ATIR trainees, provided relief assistance to 759 families, rehabilitated a 500 cubic meter ground— water reservoir, address sanitation and safety risk, install solar street lighting, and provide health support. This is what funding with impact looks like. Immediate humanitarian assistance combined with the services and infrastructure that help communities stabilize and rebuild their life. To continue delivering this kind of impact, there are 4 areas where we would encourage member states to consider. First, we must address the financing gap between humanitarian action, recovery, and development. Syria is entering a period where recovery discussions are gaining momentum. Yet humanitarian needs remain extremely high. The risk is that humanitarian funding declines before recovery financing, public systems, and coordination mechanisms are ready to take over. This creates a dangerous gap where vulnerable people can fall between systems. Financing must therefore sustain life-saving assistance while also enabling, enabling practical community-level recovery as conditions begin to allow. Second, we need financing that works across sectors and not in silos. People don't experience their needs one sector at one. A family may need healthcare, water, household support, livelihood assistance, protection services, and psychosocial support simultaneously. Yet humanitarian actors often continue to work through fragmented funding streams. Different timelines, and separate reporting systems. This creates duplication and reduces efficiency. The IFRC network and SARC are committed to bringing— to bridging this divide. This is why SARC integrated area approach is so important, and why funding mechanisms that support cross-sectorial responses are equally important. Third, we must be careful about the growing focus on hybrid prioritization. Prioritization is necessary, but it cannot become a substitute for adequate financing. When funding only covers the most acute needs, humanitarian actors lose the ability to prevent needs from worsening. As resources decline, people are increasingly forced to choose between survival options. Hyper-prioritization doesn't mean needs have decreased. It means millions of people are quietly being left behind. SAARC sees this reality every day in communities where health facilities have closed, food assistance has been reduced, and the protection services have disappeared. Finally, we need more flexible funding for national responders. Flexible funding is not a luxury. It's also— it's what allows organizations like SAARC to adapt when food, disease, outbreaks, displacement movements, or return waves change the needs of a community overnight. Rich funding can keep programming— programs running. Flexible funding keeps programs relevant. I would like to offer a brief reflection on localization, giving a central place in current discussion on humanitarian reform and financing. Localization must mean investing in the systems that allow national actors to deliver responsibly and effectively. Branch networks, volunteers, finance, Assistance, procurement, safeguarding, accountability, data management, logistics, and preparedness should be recognized as essential humanitarian infrastructure, not as a secondary cost. At the same time, localization should never mean working in isolation. Effective local action requires strong coordination with the governments, the United Nations, NGOs, and other humanitarian partners. In Syria, Syrian Red Crescent is indispensable to any meaningful humanitarian response. Without its nationwide presence, branch network, volunteers, and community acceptance, financing and cooperation efforts would struggle to translate into assistance at scale. SARC serves as the bridge between national level coordination and the people and the communities humanitarian action is intended to support. As Syria's national society and auxiliary to the public authority in the humanitarian field, SARC works in a complementary— with the public authority, the United Nations, NGOs, and movement partners, while remaining guided by the principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence. Allow me to conclude with one final reflection. Syria offers a clear opportunity for the humanitarian system to evolve, and the opportunity exists now. Our country sits at the intersection of many of the challenges discussed today.— a protracted crisis, large-scale displacement, chronic underfunding, and an evolving political context that presents new opportunities. The real test of our discussion will be whether we can successfully build the bridge between humanitarian action and recovery in the practice. And in places like Syria, funding with impact means sustaining emergency assistance while supporting principled recovery where conditions allow, and investing in trusted national capacity that remains present before, during, and after crises occur. Thank you.

I thank the Secretary-General of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent. I now turn to Mr. Indrika Ratwate, Acting Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator. —and my question to you is the following: could you explain how the humanitarian community is adapting operationally to severe funding shortfalls? Sir, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Ambassador. Excellencies, colleagues, just bear with me when I frame some of the numbers and addressing the question at hand. By the end of May this year, 252 million people were in urgent need of humanitarian assistance and protection. Behind these numbers are families facing impossible choices, parents unable to feed their children, people forced to flee their homes. And humanitarian partners adjust their plans accordingly, increase the numbers of people that we try to target and reach, and make very difficult choices in prioritizing the needs of these people. Through the Global Humanitarian Overview, humanitarian partners have collectively identified 87 million people facing the most severe needs from hyper-prioritized— for hyper-prioritized support. Let me be clear. This difficult prioritization we have faced forced us to reflect on constraints, not as a reduction to human suffering, but trying to see how best the resources at hand can meet these critical needs. We are prioritizing because resources, not needs, have fallen. This prioritization is grounded in the principle of impartiality, informed by rigorous analysis and the severity of risk in making the analysis. And it makes a difference. By the end of April, humanitarian organizations have reached some 44.3 million people with at least one form of humanitarian assistance and protection. Importantly, 57% of those reached were in areas experiencing the highest levels of humanitarian need, in comparison with 43% in 2025. This shows that focused and principled humanitarian action works. But we must also be clear about what the numbers tell us. Despite our best efforts, only 1 in 6 people in need received assistance during the first months of this year. The hyper-prioritized Global Humanitarian Overview remains only 35.6% funded, leaving nearly two-thirds of the prioritized requirements unmet at this point of time. Hyper-prioritization may be necessary under current circumstances, but it must not become acceptance of a world where fewer people receive less help. And people in need are still there, even within— without that hyper-prioritization, and how do we reach those people is important to reflect on. That is why we must make every dollar received count. We must look not only at how much we fund humanitarian action, but also how we fund— how we use the funding to maximize impact, strengthen local leadership, and support principled humanitarian action. Over the past year, we have demonstrated that we can change. We are fully implementing the Humanitarian Reset, with humanitarian financing as an essential pillar. We have simplified processes, expanded anticipatory action, increased the use of cash assistance, and strengthened accountability to reflect— to affected people. Innovation in this context, Excellencies, is not about novelty. It's about finding better ways to deliver principal humanitarian action earlier, faster, and closer to the people affected by crisis. Flexible financing instruments have an important role to play in this regard. The Central Emergency Response Fund and the country-based pooled funds have demonstrated their value in helping aid organizations respond quickly to deteriorating conditions, support underfunded emergencies, and reinforce collective priorities. Today, pooled funds account for more than a quarter of the funding directed to the hyper-prioritized global humanitarian overview. At the same time, important challenges remain. Direct and indirect funding to national organizations still remains far below the extent to which it should be devolved to partners. This must change. Real localization requires meaningful participation in decision-making, appropriate resharing, and sustained investment in local capacities. —because no single actor can meet today's humanitarian needs alone. Communities themselves must be at the forefront of every response. Local and national organizations provide the leadership and access. International NGOs, Red Cross, Red Crescent partners, and the United Nations agencies contribute expertise and operational reach. And donors provide the essential resources to make these efforts possible. Each part of the system matters. And when, colleagues, we've been talking about also transitions, it is really important that humanitarian action and resourcing is also matched with commensurate resilience and development funding to ensure that there is no gap between— from recovery into stability and sustainable investments in development. Excellencies, budgets are not just numbers. They are choices. Will clinics remain open? Will protection services continue? Will children continue learning? Will families receive the support they need to survive? Humanitarians alone will continue to adapt, prioritize, and innovate. However, collective collaborative action is quintessential to ensuring that we make the maximum impact on the people we serve. Reform is not retreat, and efficiencies cannot replace solidarity, and innovation cannot replace investment. Our collective responsibility therein is to ensure that humanitarian action remains principled, effective, and adequately resourced to reach those facing the gravest risks wherever they are., because every dollar is measured not by what we spend, but by the lives we help to save. I thank you.

Doy la gracias al Subsecretario General Interim.

I thank the Acting Assistant Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator, Atotsha. I now give the floor to Ms. Siselmopilo Shange-Bhutan, Director of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation of South Africa. My question to you, Madam, is: from South Africa's perspective, what are the most important ways for member states to demonstrate solidarity? Miss Janga Butane, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chairperson. Excellencies, dear colleagues, good afternoon. Let me start by saying that South Africa's approach to financing humanitarian action is guided by the values of our diplomacy of Ubuntu, a foreign policy orientation rooted in our shared humanity, solidarity, compassion, human dignity, and collective responsibility. It is the belief that I am because you are.

Thank you.

For Ubuntu reminds us that the suffering of one person impacts all of us, and that our response to humanitarian needs must be anchored in humanity, justice, and the respect for the dignity of every person. For South Africa, financing humanitarian action is therefore not merely a matter of emergency relief. It is an expression of solidarity, a contribution to peace and stability, and an investment in sustainable development, reconstruction, resilience, and the realization of human rights. Democratic South Africa achieved freedom through international solidarity. So we know what solidarity can do for a people. Across the world, Chair, armed conflict, disasters, displacement, widening inequalities continue to place immense pressure on affected communities and on the multilateral—

Thank you.

Humanitarian system. These challenges require principled, coordinated, and sustained collective action and solidarity. Solidarity— solidarity not only with the people impacted by human humanitarian crisis, but solidarity too with many local actors and humanitarian organizations who carry out their work in some of the most difficult and in dangerous contexts with limited resources. South Africa supports humanitarian action in several areas and believes these are amongst the most important ways in which solidarity can be expressed by member states. Firstly, funding for humanitarian action. This includes funding for UN and other humanitarian organizations, and in South Africa we fund OCHA, CERF, IOM, UNHCR, the ICRC, and others.

Thank you.

And earmarked flexible and predictable funding is essential. It allows humanitarian actors to respond rapidly to complex emergencies, reaching vulnerable communities and prioritizing and adapting assistance according to the needs on the ground. Solidarity means working together, coordinating for effective humanitarian action and impacts on the ground. It is our belief that localization remains essential to making humanitarian action more effective, accountable, inclusive, and sustainable. It is central to the diplomacy of Ubuntu, as it recognizes the dignity, agency, and knowledge of communities affected by crisis. Donor collaboration, therefore, as part of solidarity, is key in supporting pooled funding. It is also important to fund capacity building for local actors as part of trust building, as some of the donors have been used to funding international organizations. Solidarity also calls for member states to invest in anticipatory action and disaster risk reduction, promoting engagements across sectors, including with the private sector, the insurance sector, whilst aligning with national priorities. Secondly, Chairperson, mobilizing international solidarity for a shared purpose is important. The Global Initiative to Galvanize Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law is a prime example. This initiative was launched collectively by South Africa, Brazil, China, France, Jordan, Kazakhstan, and the ICRC. And this initiative reminds us that the international community bears a collective responsibility to ensure respect for and compliance with IHL at a time where there is a blatant disregard for IHL resulting in the dehumanization and untold suffering for thousands of civilians. So respect for IHL is not an abstract legal obligation. It is a practical and essential means of protecting human life and dignity in armed conflicts. IHL contributes to the protection of civilians, safeguarding those who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, and facilitates safe, rapid, and unimpeded humanitarian access. It serves as a reminder to all parties to armed conflicts of their legal obligations. Including their responsibility to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure. By promoting respect for IHL, the international community gives practical meaning to solidarity and reaffirms the principle that even in war, humanity must prevail. Thirdly, South Africa supports activities aimed at strengthening coordination across the humanitarian, development, and peace nexus. We recognize that humanitarian crisis cannot be addressed through short-term assistance alone. Humanitarian action must be linked to peacebuilding, development, resilience, recovery, and the realization of human rights. South Africa contributes humanitarian assistance through the humanitarian aid budget, which we often use for earmarked contributions and responses to emergencies and emergency flash appeals, and also sometimes to cover underfunded programs. For longer-term development projects and those projects— and those contexts where there is transitioning from emergency humanitarian crisis, we contribute through the African Renaissance and International Cooperation Fund. This fund further supports peace efforts and broader diplomatic efforts aimed at conflict prevention and resolution. Our participation in peacekeeping reflects our conviction that there can be no sustainable humanitarian action, no development without peace, security, and stability. Fourthly, advocacy and the use of diplomatic platforms to resolve conflicts, to create conducive conditions for unhindered humanitarian access is important. South Africa is often known for its quiet diplomacy. Not all successful interventions need to be public. It is thus important for member states to use their influence in promoting effective humanitarian action, in promoting effective humanitarian action. Many donors to the humanitarian system are already development partners in some of the contexts where there are challenges. Member states can then use, as part of solidarity, their influence to ensure that the development gains they have invested in are not eroded. Fifth, South Africa supports the UN Haiti process and the broader humanitarian reset. We believe that the multilateral system must continually adapt to respond more effectively to contemporary and emerging challenges. The humanitarian system must be more coordinated, efficient, inclusive, accountable, locally responsible, and better equipped to meet the needs of affected populations. The humanitarian reset provides us with an opportunity to reflect honestly on how the system can better serve people in need. However, the reform must also not compromise on quality. Sixth, providing life-saving complementary pathways is another way in which member states can show solidarity. This provides an opportunity for those in humanitarian situations and those needing emergency medical care to receive this outside of their own home countries to receive this and more, and thus increasing the likelihood of them later contributing to the rebuilding and development of their countries and their communities. This is also part of burden sharing. To summarize, Chairperson and Excellencies, member states can therefore show solidarity through engaging in advocacy and diplomatic efforts with other member states, negotiating unhindered humanitarian access and promoting peace processes, by providing any earmarked flexible and predictable funding, including funding the gaps with the current humanitarian appeals and plans and underfunded operations, ensuring respect for and compliance with international humanitarian law, supporting local partners, including through capacity building. One of the key issues is around the trust I think one of my colleagues already raised this issue, to say there is currently not a strong relationship between humanitarian donors and some of the local partners. One of the ways that we can try to strengthen that relationship, for instance, is to consider like how they do in the development sector, whether we can't do sub-granting while some of the local actors build their credibility, and also will build confidence in terms of ensuring that in future, perhaps more funding is granted to them. Lastly, providing direct life-saving assistance through complementary pathways for those who need to be evacuated or who need to rebuild their lives outside of their home countries. Thank you.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I thank the Director at the South African Department of International Relations and Cooperation I'll now turn to Ms. Nicole Kouassi, Deputy Special Representative, Resident Coordinator, and Humanitarian Coordinator at the UN Integrated Office in Haiti, who is joining us virtually. I'd like to ask her the following question: Could you please share some examples of where funding gaps are having the greatest operational impact? Ms. Kouassi, the floor is yours.

Distinguished Chair, Excellencies, and thank you for giving me the opportunity today to contribute to this important discussion. And I'm sorry, but the internet is quite shaky, so I hope I will be able to do the presentation up to the end. So I speak to you today from Haiti, where the humanitarian consequences of the violence, displacement, and institutional fragility continue to deepen, even as the resources available to respond are shrinking. The reality we face today is increasingly defined not only by growing needs but by difficult choices. This year, the humanitarian community in Haiti requires nearly, uh, $880 million to respond to the urgent needs. To date, about $229 million, 26%, has been secured. Humanitarian actors are facing forced— are being forced to make increasingly difficult prioritization decisions. We have moved way beyond doing more with the least. We are now deciding who can be reached and who must wait. The impact is particularly visible in areas affected by armed violence and displaced populations. The challenges of Haiti are compounded by the complexity of the crisis itself. Haiti is not facing a single emergency. But the convergence of multiple crises. Armed violence continues to drive large-scale displacement and acute protection needs, while severe food insecurity affects millions of people. At the same time, recurrent climate shocks, including the hurricane season, continue to threaten vulnerable communities and basic health services such as health, education, and social protection are under immense strain. As needs increase across multiple sectors simultaneously, humanitarian actors are being asked to respond to a protection crisis, a displacement crisis, a food security crisis, and a climate-related crisis.

Thank you.

All at once with increasingly limited resources. Humanitarian partners have had to concentrate limited resources on populations facing the highest level of food insecurity, displacement, and risk— and protection risk. This high prioritization is necessary, but it comes at cost. Families experiencing severe hardship outside this priority area often receive little or no support. In practice, this means that vulnerable households receive assistance only after the situation has deteriorated significantly. We see these consequences every day.

Thank you.

Day. In displacement sites across Port-au-Prince, families uprooted by violence are living in increasingly precarious and inhuman conditions. Humanitarian partners were only able to provide emergency support to nearly 97,000 displaced people in sites and shelter assistance to more than 102,000 $1,000 out of 1.7 million displaced population, showing that available resources are not keeping pace with growing needs. Funding gaps are having a profound impact on protection services, particularly for women, girls, and children. At a time where gender-based violence remain—

Thank you.

Alarmingly high. More than 3,100 incidents reported this year alone, and nearly three-quarters involving rape or other form of sexual violence. We have an average of 21 cases of rape per day. Organizations are struggling to sustain safe space, psychological support, and survival assistance. For many women, these services are not optional. They are life-saving. And yet this sector is the least resourced. In the health sector, facilities already operating under extraordinary pressure face growing challenges in maintaining essential services. Humanitarian support has helped more than half a million people access healthcare despite the crisis. But only 27% of health facilities nationwide are fully operational, leaving the system under severe strain. Food security is another area where the effects of food shortage are immediate and visible. While humanitarian partners have provided life-saving assistance 2.55 million severely food insecure people. An estimated 5.3 million people continue to face severe food insecurity. Humanitarian actors are increasingly forced to focus on assistance on the most acute cases, leaving many households on the edge of crisis without support until conditions become even even more severe. Haiti is facing one of the most severe child protection crisis in the world, with children estimated to represent between 30 to 50% of armed group members. Humanitarian actors have supported the release of and reintegration of hundreds of children formerly associated with armed groups. Thank you. And reunited more than 2,000 separated children with their families. But needs continue to outpace available resources. Without sustaining— sustained funding, more children will be exposed to hunger, lack of school, lack of hope, and therefore exposed to recruitment, violence, exploitation, and prolonged displacement. Excellencies, significant challenges remain. Funding remains concentrated among a small number of donors and local and national organizations still receive only a very small share of overall humanitarian financing, despite often being the first responders and having the greatest access to affected communities. Thank you. If current funding trends continue, we risk reversing hard-won humanitarian space, and humanitarian space will shrink. Vulnerabilities will deepen. The cost, both human and financial, of responding later will be significantly higher. In Haiti, we are focused relentlessly on efficiency. Coordination, and impact. First, we have strengthened geographic prioritization, concentrating resources where needs are more severe and where assistance can save the greatest number of lives. Second, improved joint planning, joint assessment, and integrated service delivery, bringing together protection, health, nutrition, food, and assistance, and WASH intervention where possible to maximize impact of every dollar invested. Third, we are investing in preparedness and anticipatory action. With the hurricane season underway, acting before disasters strike is not only more humane but also more cost-effective. Thank you. We are also seeing encouraging results from area-based approaches in high-risk urban environments, particularly in the metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince. By working collectively within defined geographic areas, partners have improved targeting, coordination, and operational efficiency despite resource constraints. None of this would have been possible without flexible resources and financing. The Central Emergency Fund and pooled funding mechanism have been indispensable in helping us maintain operational capacity under exceptional difficult circumstances. Self-funding has enabled humanitarian access through support to the UNHAS. A critical lifeline in a context where insecurity and logistical challenges severely constrained our movements. Additional SOF allocations have supported underfunded emergencies, anticipatory action, and gender-responsive programming, allowing us to address critical gaps that would otherwise remain unattended. At the same time, Full funding mechanisms have enabled targeted responses in priority areas and strengthened localization efforts, bringing resources closer to affected communities and those best placed to reach them. Haiti also illustrates both the progress made and the challenges that remain on localization. While local and national organizations receive only 0.5% 4% of overall humanitarian funding, nearly 40% of pooled fund allocation are directed to national and local NGOs. This demonstrates the value of flexible fund financing mechanism in channeling resources to frontline responders with the access, knowledge, and trust needed to operate in the environment. Thank you. In the challenging environment. Haiti also demonstrates the value of combining rapid surf allocation with targeted pooled fund response. Surf provides speed and scale, while pooled fund provide proximity and precision, enabling us to maximize impact despite severe resource constraints. The complementarity between these two mechanisms offer an important lesson for today's funding environment. Financing must not only be adequate but also flexible, rapid, and strategically aligned across the humanitarian cycle. Excellencies, this conversation takes place just days after the Secretary-General's solidarity visit in Haiti. During that visit, He met displaced families, humanitarian workers, civil society representatives, and national authorities, witnessing firsthand the human consequence of the crisis. He spoke of the dire humanitarian situation, which remained desperate, but also of glimmers of hope as a genuine opportunity to change the country's trajectory. Thank you. The Secretary-General reminds us that beyond every statistic is a person, a child deprived of education, a family forced from its home, a woman faced with heightened protection risks, a community struggling to survive amidst violence and uncertainty. He also reminded us that the resilience of the Haitian people is extraordinary, but resilience alone cannot be expected to carry the burden of this crisis. His message was clear. International community must not look away. He called for predictable humanitarian financing, support to Haiti recovery and institution, and sustained international engagement. That combination of urgency, responsibility, and hope is precisely what should be guiding our discussion on humanitarian financing today. Allow me now to conclude. Allow me now to conclude with 3 messages. First, Humanitarian financing must preserve the ability to respond according to needs and humanitarian principles, even in periods of financial or fiscal constraints. Second, flexible funding mechanisms such as CERF and pooled funds remain among the most effective tools available to maximize impact and should be protected and strengthened. Thank you. Third, investments in preparedness, localization, and resilience are not alternative to humanitarian action. They are essential components of a more effective and sustained response. We must continue empowering local and national actors who are often the first and last responders in communities affected by crisis. Thank you. The people of Haiti are demonstrating extraordinary resilience every day. They need and deserve a humanitarian financing system capable of matching that resilience with solidarity and sustained support. Thank you. I'm sorry for the internet connection.

I thank the Deputy Representative, Resident Coordinator, and Humanitarian Coordinator at the UN Integrated Office in Haiti. I'd now like to open the floor for comments or questions regarding the presentations we've just heard. Delegations are invited to press the microphone button to indicate their request to take the floor. I would also like to remind delegations to strictly observe the agreed time limits of 3 minutes for their statements, and also for the interpreters to be able to do the best work possible, I would compel you, please, to make your statements at a reasonable pace. I know I'm speaking very fast, but if you could speak at a reasonable pace, that would be fabulous. Thank you. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Guatemala and then to the distinguished representative of Norway. Guatemala, please.

Gracias, Presidente. Agradecemos la convocatoria.

Thank you, President. Thank you for convening this meeting, and thank you to the panelists for your valuable contributions. The humanitarian system is now facing a growing gap between needs and the resources available. This reality obliges us to reflect not only on how much financing to mobilize, but also how we use that finance in order to achieve more effective results for people in the most vulnerable situations. Guatemala has made headway in the implementation of innovative approaches focused on maximizing the impact of the resources available. And these include the use of monetary transfers, which is a modality that enables us to respond in a more flexible, efficient, dignified way to the needs of the people affected. These tools have proven to be particularly effective in context of food insecurity and human mobility, allowing families to prioritize their needs while local economies are strengthened., and the resilience of communities is strengthened also. What's more, we have strengthened monitoring systems as well as evaluation and accountability mechanisms in order to ensure more transparent, efficient, evidence-based monitoring. Measuring results and learning from our experiences is fundamental to ensure that each and every resource invested has the best impact possible. [SPEAKING RUSSIAN] Guatemala's experience confirms that humanitarian financing must move towards more flexible, predictable, and results-focused models that allow us to adapt to changing contexts and respond in a timely manner to complex needs. In this regard, we can underscore how important it is to reduce the rigidity of traditional mechanisms, to strengthen national leadership, and to promote innovative instruments that facilitate a better use of the resources available and work more closely with the communities affected. Furthermore, we believe that it's essential to expand the modalities of flexible non-EOMART funding that enables humanitarian actors to respond more quickly, more efficiently, and to better adapt to ever complex and protracted crises. It is only by transforming the financing approach that we'll be able to provide more effective, sustainable, and people-focused responses. Thank you.

Agradezco.

I thank the distinguished representative of Guatemala and give the floor to the distinguished representative of Norway, who will be followed by Indonesia.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all the distinguished panelists. I will be brief, as much has already been said that we strongly support. Allow me, however, to underline a few critical points. At a time of shrinking resources, the imperative is clear. We must maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of every dollar spent. We already have strong evidence of what works, interventions that save lives while safeguarding dignity. First, predictable quality funding is essential. Flexible instruments such as core and unearmarked funding, pooled funds, and multi-year strategic partnerships enable organizations to plan, adapt, and respond to actual needs, thereby maximizing impact. Second, anticipatory action is more cost-effective than responding. Acting early reduces both human suffering and financial costs. Third, cash assistance, particularly multipurpose cash, has proven to be one of the most efficient and impactful modalities in many contexts. Fourth, assistance is often most effective when delivered by those closest to the communities in need. Local actors are frequently best placed to ensure relevance and timeliness. Finally, investing in resilience reduces future costs. Providing core support to organizations with broader mandates, such as the WFP, UNICEF, and UNHCR, helps address immediate needs while simultaneously reducing vulnerability to future shocks. Colleagues, as member states, we must uphold our commitments. We urge all partners, including ourselves, to return to the funding compact and fully implement what we have already agreed to. If we do so, we will achieve substantial progress. Thank you.

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Norway and give the floor to the distinguished representative of Indonesia, who will be followed by the Netherlands.

Thank you, Chair. Indonesia also thanks the distinguished panellists for their insights. Colleagues, the funding crisis facing the humanitarian system has never been more acute. Persistent shortfalls, shrinking ODA, and increasingly fragmented financing have left millions without access to life-saving assistance. Addressing this challenge requires both greater resources and more effective financing arrangements. It is against this backdrop Indonesia underscores that financing reform must therefore go hand in hand with broader efforts to improve the effectiveness, coherence, and delivery of humanitarian assistance. In Indonesia, I would like to share 3 reflections. First, on diversification of humanitarian financing, traditional donor-driven funding models are no longer sufficient on their own. Indonesia underscores the significant and often underrecognized potential of non-traditional and alternative financing sources, including domestic philanthropy, faith-based giving, and community-based financing. . In many contexts, these sources are already sustaining communities long before international assistance arrives. Greater recognition, integration, and support for these mechanisms within the broader humanitarian financing architecture is therefore essential. Second, on financing tools that deliver impact. In a context of limited resources, financing tools must evolve to be more impact-driven and evidence-based. This requires stronger investment in joint needs analysis, transparent allocation criteria, and accountability mechanisms that measure outcomes for affected population, not just output for donors. Third, on burden sharing and financing architecture. Sustainable humanitarian financing cannot rest on a shrinking base of traditional donors. Expanding the financing base requires a more equitable architecture, one that recognizes the growing contributions of emerging development partners, including through South-South and triangular cooperation. At the same time, new financing commitments must remain anchored within established multilateral frameworks and must account for the domestic accountability and budgeting process of all contributing countries. To the panelists, we would like to ask: As the humanitarian system seeks to diversify its financing base, what concrete steps are being taken to formally recognize and integrate non-traditional financing sources, including faith-based and community-driven mechanisms, while ensuring that they complement rather than replace sustained international commitments? I thank you.

Agradezco al distinguido representante de Indonesia.

I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia and give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Netherlands, followed by Switzerland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and panellists. I would like to reiterate the strong support of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to quality funding. The Netherlands annually provides over half a billion US dollars in humanitarian funding, the vast majority of it going to multi-annual, flexible, and pooled funding. Flexible and pooled mechanisms remain among the most effective ways to respond to rapidly evolving in crisis. This type of funding is efficient, adaptable, and evidently responsive to emerging crises. To preserve trust in pooled funds, humanitarian actors must play their part by maintaining accountability across the system and by ensuring that they remain focused, disciplined, and aligned with collective humanitarian priorities. Continued Transparency and clear communication around allocation processes is also necessary. While pooled funding should continue to grow as a tool for flexibility, rapid response, and country-level prioritization, it cannot replace core funding for UN agencies and NGOs. Maintaining adequate core funding for operational humanitarian actors remains crucial for an effective response.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, in a context of hyper-prioritization and constrained resources, it is fundamental that resident and humanitarian coordinators are enabled to play a strategic leadership role in humanitarian financing decisions. Effective decisions also require strong, representative, and functional humanitarian country teams with meaningful participation from local and national actors. The Netherlands encourages more evidence-based and transparent decision-making at country level, including clear prioritization criteria, stronger use of needs analysis, and more systematic learning from allocation decisions. In closing, two questions to the panelists: How can we enlarge the pool of stakeholders providing humanitarian funding? And secondly, how do we ensure that higher contributions to pooled funds do not lead to further pressures on core funding. Thank you.

Doy las gracias al distinguido representante.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Netherlands, and I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Switzerland, who will be followed by the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Chair. Switzerland would like to thank the distinguished panelists for their valuable contributions and insightful remarks. The humanitarian financing crisis requires not only more resources, but also more effective use of existing funding. In this context, Switzerland strongly supports needs-based prioritization. A significant share of our humanitarian funding is directed to countries identified in the Global Humanitarian Overview. Switzerland continues to prioritize high-quality and flexible funding. Flexible, unearmarked funding enables humanitarian actors to respond according to needs and adapt to rapidly evolving crises. Let me highlight three very brief points. First, local actors are essential first responders. More direct, flexible, and predictable funding for local organizations should be part of the solution. Second, anticipatory action helps save lives and reduce costs. Investing before crises escalate is both more effective and more efficient. And third, allow me to conclude by underlining that even in a context of severe underfunding, humanitarian assistance must remain principled, needs-based, and focused on the most vulnerable. I thank you.

Doy las gracias al distinguido representante de Suiza, tiene la palabra—

I thank Switzerland and give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom, followed by the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair and panellists, for your presentations. We share a common objective to make humanitarian response more effective for people in need, and how we use humanitarian funding is a vital part of this. And as we've heard from the panel today, we should use our funding choices to transform delivery. I will make 4 points. First, we welcome efforts to drive hyper-prioritization to target funding towards the greatest need. For the UK, we plan to spend £1.4 billion each year in places with the highest humanitarian need over the next 3 years. Second, on localization and funding flows. As we've heard today and elsewhere this week, funding must become more accessible for local and national actors. We see pooled funds as central to this, but I welcome the panel's reflections on how we strengthen them further, including on transparency, risk sharing, and meaningful participation of local actors across the funding cycle. Third, we should increase the use of multi-purpose cash as a more efficient form of aid. Cash brings people dignity and agency to meet their own needs while supporting local markets, and helping build longer-term resilience. Yet global cash fell from 24% in 2022 to 19% in 2025. We should collectively aim for 30% by 2027, and I welcome the panel's views on how we might get there. Finally, on anticipatory action. As we know, 35% of shocks can be forecast, yet funding for anticipatory action remains under 0.7%, demonstrating the gap between ambition and delivery. The UK is proud to be driving innovation, including through our support to develop the first risk transfer solution for the Central Emergency Response Fund, demonstrating how partnerships between donors, humanitarians, and the private sector can drive more effective solutions. So my final question to the panel is, what more is needed from donors, the UN system, and partners to scale up anticipatory approaches in a meaningful way? Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom and give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Thank you, President. Over the last few days in the humanitarian segment, many spoke about combined or pooled funding. I would like to first and foremost reaffirm the importance of the Central Emergency Response Surf. We believe that this fund remains one of the key instruments for rapid and flexible humanitarian response, allowing for resource allocation that takes into account the global needs landscape, including underfunded crises. At the same time, country pooled funds, by their nature, focus resources on specific crises. Given the overall funding deficit, this could exacerbate the imbalance between human situations and could lead to more visible crises receiving greater attention to the detriment of forgotten crises. In addition, country funds create additional layers of administration and coordination costs, although the ultimate providers of humanitarian operations remain the same humanitarian agencies. In this regard, we'd like to ask, has an assessment been conducted of the combined administrative and coordination costs of country funds, including in comparison to direct financing by implementing agencies. In our view, country humanitarian funds can be a useful additional instrument. However, they should not replace the CERF or the sustainable and predictable financing of UN humanitarian operations, which are crucial for a more fair and universal humanitarian response. Thank you.

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. We have now come to the end of this round of statements from member states, and I'd now like to invite the distinguished panelists to respond to the comments made by the delegations and the questions posed. So first of all, I'll give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Fergal Meathain Permanent Representative of Ireland. Sir, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Ambassador. I think, you know, I think there's a broad swathe of agreement about the utility of the SERF, of pooled funding, and how that can help to address the current climate. I think there are other questions there around additional funding, and I think that's really, really important I mean, clearly ODA is going down and I don't think it's going to go up any time soon. We're seeing a very, very interesting engagement with OCHA and the US administration in recent times that I think is yielding some very important results. But we're also aware of other, you know, actors, private sector funding, which I think we do need to tap into. I know we do some work in the vision space with some NGOs who are really tapping into resources for global eye health through Bloomberg, etc. So there are other sources out there funding, maybe not to the scale of what we used to have from donor countries, but I think we have to, in a sense, tap all sources and all elements to really fill the gap that has been created. I think the pooled funding, we see the benefits of it, we've heard of other elements there like the cash payments that can really help. I think in this day and age, it's really important to be innovative, to be adaptable, to be agile, to hold on to our values and our principles, but recognise that this is a changing climate where we have to have that agility to see what we can do and how we do business. I mean, in Ireland, we are— we have not reduced our ODA, we've increased our ODA by a small amount. There's strong political support across our political system for that increase., but at the same time we recognize that the world is changing, our partners are changing, so we have to be agile and adaptable and innovative too. I think that's really, really important. But I'll leave it to more experienced colleagues on both right and left to delve into some of the details of the questions that were asked, but I think we need agility and that's what the UN system needs across the board in all pillars and certainly in this pillar too. Thank you.

Doy la gracias.

Thank you, Your Excellency. Thank you, Fergal. I now give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, Ms. Raya Ramadan. Madam, you have the floor.

When it comes to the capacity and even of the localization, so let's focus on this part because it's really very important when it comes to the response itself and even at the emergency time. When we strengthen the local capacity, invest in the local organization, not only on the international ones. So this means like we have more sustainable and cost efficiency. Training the Syrian local NGOs and training in the project management and the monitoring and even the reporting will play a very important role even in strengthening strengthening their capacity and to be able to focus even on the response when it's time of the response. So preparedness and early warning, so plan before the crisis happen, like prepositioning to avoid any emergency shortages. Combine the sectors when it comes even to the response. All the sectors when we have humanitarian service where we have all the activity in one place. By this way, we can have a single center providing the medical care, psychosocial support, food assistance instead of separate services. Improve the collaboration between the organizations to avoid any kind of duplication and the gaps in the assistance. Increase the rule of the cost efficiency, so every program must justify, like, cross-purposary and impact, avoid any kind of duplication, merging programs, sharing resources across partners. So this is to conclude even how to work even and how to make it more efficient and have the impact on the population's service. Thank you.

I thank the Secretary-General of the Syrian Red present, and I give the floor now to the Deputy Secretary-General on Humanitarian Affairs and Coordinator at the— and the Coordinator. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of reflections. I think one point about how to explore and expand non-traditional financing mechanisms that complement and not replace the funding mechanisms. I think here one way of looking at it is also first using common sets of data and the evidence that goes behind needs and their prioritization. And as I think our colleague from Indonesia rightly pointed out, most often in hyper-intense emergency crisis, it's— the first responders are always communities and local communities and governments, local governments. So the data that's gathered, the data that's analysed really should look at also what are the local skills and capacities, in addition to the needs, how best can that be utilized, who's best placed to channel it through and have those mechanisms in the immediate term. In the mid to longer term, in looking at crisis and resilience, I think therein also is the connectivity with the broader resilience agenda, and if, in the context of that particular country, if there's a cooperation framework, how the cooperation framework also jibes with the humanitarian appeals and the needs is very important that we move, as we were saying yesterday, in the resource allocation from addressing the immediate life-saving fragility needs towards more the stability and resilience. But really mapping out those opportunities, the actors, is I think the first step really to look at how non-traditional resources can be better harnessed. On how to enlarge pooled funding and the question around pooled funding and co-funding, I think it's clear and the consensus here on the investments in pool funding to address fragmentation, to address efficiencies, is clear, that it also enables a more coherent approach to joint needs assessments and resource mobilization. So how to enlarge these pool funds, I think really one question is, yes, it is— Yes, it is. Theatre and context and operations-based, and obviously the more dramatic needs in a particular situation would bring about attention and political engagement and the collective consciousness around how resources can be allocated, but also the point about making sure that those crises that are dormant and protracted and off of the media and political spectrum do not get into forgotten crises is important. Therein, I think pool funding allocations also at member state and donor level to reflect on some of those realities and the data that talks about the impact on protracted situations is important, and allocation therein to those pool funds in these locations are important. If you look at some of the pool funds, you have the big operations receiving quite substantial resources with the pooled funds or the humanitarian appeals, and others, forgotten crises, really have year-on-year diminishing resources. It's a challenge because the resources are finite and every resource, every theatre cannot be financed, but the human reality of impact on lives is the same. Whether it's high profile, low profile, or protracted, lives are lives, so how is a balance struck and maybe a more coherent discussion also among member states about how they prioritize and looking at the gaps and how some of those gaps could be addressed could be helpful. Pool versus cofunds, I think it's incredibly important that the cofunds required for partners to deliver humanitarian assistance is recognized, because a pool fund, if the The framing is that those resources should be devolved directly to life-saving action alone—fair enough—but there's a whole infrastructure that goes to delivering that assistance and it doesn't happen on its own. In certain theatres, personal protection, armoured vehicles, communications are all part of delivering that assistance. So without supporting that, the pooled funds and its resources cannot be devolved and provided by partners, so it's important that co-funding also be considered for partners and entities to enable that delivery. So really, a balance again to be struck between the two. Lastly, what is more needed to scale anticipatory action from both the donors, UN and partners? I think the fiscal logic of it is very clear. A dollar invested in anticipatory action enables the identification and mitigation of root causes means that hopefully the escalation of the needs won't be that dramatic. So there, I think again, one thing we've talked about and agreed as well is data, data, data. So the real joint-up data collection and analysis really helps anticipate reaction. We've seen that from— in many, many theatres where that has been invested in time. The CERF allocations has also helped a lot to find anticipatory action. We've seen how it has mitigated need and addressed potential catastrophic consequences, so I would say the main thing there is to encourage, support, and enable joint data collection analysis and forecasting to make the anticipatory action more meaningful and impactful. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Otuwate. I now give the floor to Ms. Siselmphilo Shangputan, Director at the Department of International Relations and Cooperation of South Africa.

Thank you, Chairperson. Thank you so much, Excellencies and dear colleagues, for the questions and inputs. I would just like to cover The question around expanding the pool of donors and also the scaling up of anticipatory action. I think in my intervention, I did touch on the issue of engaging the private sector. Currently, what we are doing in South Africa is we are engaging a lot of private sector. So it's a process that is working in two ways. We have been approached, but we've also gone out to engage with private sector around their engagement in humanitarian action. One of the emerging issues is around the use of corporate social investment differently and creatively in expanding to other sectors, particularly the humanitarian sector, for better impact. While not neglecting the development programs that many of the CSI programs are covering. So that's one way of expanding the pool to really intensify our engagement with the private sector. The other one is to involve particularly the insurance sector for anticipatory action, because there is also realization that with the scaling up of anticipatory action, that reduces the cost ultimately of insurance payouts in cases of disasters and when claims arise in the future. There is also political-level commitment from South Africa. For instance, our political principals have committed to engaging with captains of industry just to introduce them to the sector and then working them into— working with them in terms of exploring innovative ways of funding this sector in particular. What we see is that with the increase in intensity of climate-related disasters, this is what is prompting many of the companies to be interested in engaging in the humanitarian sector, but also for investments, for instance, outside the countries of origin, it's good to also engage those companies because some of them do find themselves negatively impacted when their humanitarian situations or crisis arise where they're actually running businesses. So that's why there's that interest, and that's one area where— those areas that we need to really capitalize on as this sector. In terms of philanthropy, again, there's interest, and I appreciate that comment from our colleagues in Indonesia., because it's also another area that we are currently engaging in, that we are also encouraging other countries to really engage in, in terms of supporting this sector. As I said earlier in my intervention, the humanitarian sector is used— many of us are used to just finding the UN, funding the UN agencies, and we don't really have established or well-developed experience in funding directly local actors. Part of what is required is also to work across policy spaces. For instance, the section that I manage is mostly foreign policy-related humanitarian action, so where we contribute to the UN and other international organizations responding to humanitarian situations across the world, but I also have colleagues who work on disaster risk reduction. Thank you. And they have funding, and they are the ones who are working mostly with the local actors. So coordinating that engagement can actually ensure that we expand the resources that we need to respond to the sector. And then lastly, just to use the regional mechanisms that are set up, I think in this discussion, generally, regional mechanisms often get overlooked, and yet there's also resources at that level. Thank you. Thank you.

I thank the Director at the Department of International Relations and Cooperation of South Africa. And now I give the floor to Ms. Nicola— sorry, Nicole Kouassi, the Deputy Special Representative Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator at the UN Integrated Office in Haiti, speaking virtually.

Thank you, Chair. I'll go for the additional resources and the anticipatory action. For the additional resources, one key partner in Haiti is the government of Haiti, especially on the food security where we— through World Food Program, they actually help in the local production of food so that— and the government buy the food from World Food Programme and it's redistributed into the humanitarian assistance but also in local vulnerable communities. The government of Haiti is also providing one meal, one hot meal a day in most of the IDP sites. So they kind of— one of the— Thank you. Other partners. One other partner is the IFIs, especially the World Bank, which if it's not directly through the humanitarian, but they're actually assisting on food through the World Food Programme and on education through UNICEF to bridge the gap, the nexus humanitarian and development in terms of building school, produce also support supporting the production of food and also assistance for school. On anticipatory action, I think I want to reiterate the importance of anticipatory action and that's where the CERF also has been very helpful. Last year in November and October, November when we had the Hurricane Melissa, the anticipatory action actually resources helped us provide alert to more than 3.5 million of the population in the area where the hurricane was able to hit. So, and we work with the National Protection Services to have shelters and etc. So when it was coming, most of the population were moved. We could proposition food there based on the resources of the anticipatory action resources from the south. So that's helped us actually reduce significantly— Haiti has more infrastructure casualty rather than human casualty in terms of loss of lives, so compared to Jamaica and the other islands that were hit with Melissa. So the importance of having anticipatory action, that's what we are working on at this— at this point in time. That's what we are working on at this point in time to actually ensure that we have a good preparedness for the hurricane season, not only with the surf anticipatory resources but also having some resources from the pool fund to be directly to local NGOs to start working in terms of preventing a potential big hurricane I'll stop here. Thank you.

Doi laas graasias. I thank Ms. Nicole Kouassi. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, colleagues, please allow me to begin by thanking all of our panelists. Thank you for your very insightful and grounded contributions. This panel has clearly highlighted the scale of the financial pressures currently facing the humanitarian system., as well as the very real consequences these pressures are having in practice on the ground. Throughout our exchanges, one message stood out clearly: the humanitarian financing gap is no longer an abstract concern. It is translating directly into operational realities on the ground in terms of the humanitarian response. We've heard how humanitarian organizations are increasingly being required to make difficult choices about whom they can reach, what assistance can be sustained, and which operations can continue. We've also heard how these choices are not only theoretical, but they also have immediate human consequences, including reductions in assistance, interruptions to essential services, and growing gaps in protection and support. In this sense, the discussion has reaffirmed a central point. As suffering intensifies, the gap between needs and resources is becoming both more visible and more consequential. At the same time, our discussion has demonstrated that humanitarian organizations are continuing to adapt. Panelists highlighted ongoing efforts to strengthen coordination, reduce duplication, and strengthen country-level leadership, and direct their resources, which are increasingly limited, towards the highest impact operations. Thank you. We also saw special emphasis placed rather on supporting national and local actors as well as on approaches such as anticipatory action and collective financing mechanisms. These efforts are helping the system to continue to deliver under extremely difficult conditions. However, a second message came out of this discussion equally clearly: adaptation has limits. While operational adjustments can improve effectiveness and extend extend available resources, they cannot fully compensate for sustained and significant funding shortfalls. Excellencies, we can draw several conclusions from this debate. First of all, there is broad support for flexible, predictable— the lack of funding is subjecting us to a lot of pressure, and It has become clear that there is shared concern regarding the operational human consequences of the strain, and there is a clear understanding that financing remains a critical enabler of humanitarian action. At the same time, our discussions have reflected differing perspectives on important questions, including financing responsibilities, prioritization, and approaches to burden sharing. These differences are important to acknowledge, and they reflect the complexity of the current international environment. Even then, several areas of convergence have emerged. There is broad support for flexible, predictable, and timely humanitarian funding. We've seen recognition of the importance of collective approaches, strong coordination, and support for local actors. And there is broad consensus that maintaining the ability of Humanitarian organizations to deliver life-saving assistance must remain a central objective. As we move forward, the discussion points to the importance of sustaining engagement, strengthening cooperation, and identifying practical ways to support principled and effective humanitarian action. This includes ensuring that available resources are used as effectively as possible and that delivery systems remain responsive to those in the greatest need. Excellencies, this panel also reinforces a broader message that has emerged across the humanitarian affairs segment. Humanitarian action today is taking place under increased financial, operational, and political strain. Sustaining this action will therefore require continued effort across all of these dimensions. As we continue our deliberations, I encourage all of us to reflect on how we can all contribute individually and collectively to ensuring that humanitarian assistance remains capable of reaching those facing the most severe risks. Please allow me to conclude by thanking all of the panelists and participants for your valuable contributions. The Council will reconvene tomorrow morning at 10:00 AM in this conference room to continue and conclude its general discussion and close the segment. The meeting is adjourned.