UN Relief Chief pushes for humanitarian system "even more rooted in the communities we serve"

Under-Secretary-General Tom Fletcher visited Safe Path Prosperity, a women's enterprise in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The funding support is gradually being reduced as the enterprise becomes self-sufficient, marking a success story. Photo: OCHA/Ahmad Khalid Khaliqi
Under-Secretary-General Tom Fletcher visited Safe Path Prosperity, a women's enterprise in Kandahar, Afghanistan in April 2025. The funding support is gradually being reduced as the enterprise becomes self-sufficient, marking a success story. Photo: OCHA/Ahmad Khalid Khaliqi

Statement by Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher

 The Humanitarian Reset – Phase Two

 Geneva, 19 June 2025

The IASC [Inter-Agency Standing Committee] gathered on 17 June. We paid tribute to the dignity and courage of those we serve, to colleagues killed since we last met, to the many superb people and programmes lost due to massive and sudden funding cuts, and to all those still on the humanitarian frontlines.   

A transactional, inward-looking, less generous era is a tough time to be a humanitarian. Our finances and values are under sustained attack. The drivers of crises — political polarization, climate crisis, and conflict — are growing and will drive needs up even further. A doom loop.

So, we were unequivocal: we are not in retreat from the principles that underpin our humanitarian mission, nor the determination to reach as many people with lifesaving support as we can. We will defend this mission.     

 In February, the IASC discussed the first phase of the Humanitarian Reset: a bold agenda to regroup and reform. We are delivering the ten-point plan I outlined following that meeting, towards a humanitarian response that is locally led and globally supported. From a system driven by the money we can raise to one based on greatest need. A system that is even more rooted in the communities we serve. We are significantly reducing the size of the humanitarian sector. We have prioritized our funding for the most urgent country operations, with accelerated transition out of eight of them. We continue to reduce duplication and bureaucracy. We committed to end turf wars. 

 I was heartened that our meeting yesterday brought further clarity, ambition and rigour to the next phase of the Humanitarian Reset. A sense of shared endeavour. We discussed the key elements of the next phase:

 1.Define 

  • a hyper-prioritized Global Humanitarian Overview, focused on the 114 million people whose lives are most at risk. This does not mean that wider needs have gone – far from it. We need more support. But it allows us to ask the world to show the courage and generosity to back this ruthlessly prioritized effort with just 1 per cent of what was spent last year on defence. 

2. Deliver

  • coordinated, principled humanitarian action, with protection and women and girls at its centre, under the strategic leadership of Humanitarian Coordinators (HCs) and Humanitarian Country Teams (HCTs), supported by a critical mass of pooled and other funding;
  • shared services by the UN or others by default, including coordination, needs assessments, risk management, pooled data systems and information management, back-office support, supply chains, communication, premises and logistics (aligned with the UN80 process launched by the UN Secretary-General);
  • protection and participation of women and girls, including survivors of sexual violence. This is lifesaving work, especially in the face of the global pushback against gender equality. The new system must be accountable to crisis-affected women and girls, and increase funding to women-led organizations;
  • more multi-purpose cash assistance wherever feasible and appropriate, with local actors fully involved;
  • sustained engagement to bring in new partners and sources of finance;
  • a reinvigorated, simplified and more inclusive IASC to support collective action;
  • ruthlessly simplified planning and appeals. We will institutionalize consultations to identify communities’ priorities for our collective action (planning, coordination, financing) and accountability;
  • far greater emphasis on transitioning out of humanitarian action, whenever and wherever possible;
  • increased advocacy on resilience building and root causes of crises with development actors and International Financial Institutions.

 3. Devolve

  • empowered leaders in country, with HCT led by HCs operating as strategic, unified crisis platforms, and with UN and NGO representatives mutually accountable to the HC and local communities, as well of course to their agencies. The IASC was clear that success of this model depends on recruitment and support of outstanding, fair, objective humanitarian leaders, with stronger accountability and performance management;
  • coordination models to be context-specific, and built around the needs, priorities and capacities of communities. The HC/HCT can opt for the coordination structure that is fit for their context, using area-based coordination, streamlined clusters, or other approaches. HCs and HCTs to be held accountable on delivering against priorities identified by affected people, agreed through a consultation and validation process;
  • significantly greater funding than previous targets to country pooled funds, which would provide significantly more funding to local actors/frontline responders (with particular focus on women-led organizations). The IASC has not agreed a specific target for pooled funding, but my aspiration as ERC is to reach 50 per cent, with 70 per cent of that for local actors. Pooled funds will need to show they can deliver at a more ambitious level, and support the whole sector: no power grabs;
  • more equitable partnerships with local and national actors, based on trust and recognition;
  • streamlined clusters (from 15 to 8), with HCs/HCTs to activate clusters needed (if any) in their local context, with leadership by local NGOs where possible. I hope we can further reduce the clusters as we test these new systems;
  • greater integration between cluster and refugee coordination models, working towards one humanitarian coordination model;
  • a renewed and improved Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), that complements other pooled funds. For its 20th anniversary, I believe we should renew the SG’s pitch for the CERF to reach US$1bn/year.  

 4. Defend

  • unequivocally uphold humanitarian principles and consistent application of International Humanitarian Law;
  • consistent messaging and protection of our collective work on gender, and against sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (on which I will write separately);
  • more shared advocacy for protection of civilians and humanitarian workers;
  • protect space for agile, creative humanitarian diplomacy;
  • collective campaigns to communicate our work and shrink the distance between supporter and supported.

I will share proposals on how to deliver and – importantly – track implementation of this phase of the Reset. Our problem historically is not lack of ideas for reform, but lack of execution. As we implement these changes, we aim to show not tell – visible, practical delivery, not abstract lofty commitments.

This work helps us regroup and reform. But we also acknowledged that it has been hard to be strategic amid such flux: we have not yet carved out enough space to think about radical renewal. I will share suggestions about how we do that in advance of the next IASC meeting. In particular, we highlighted the need to think about:

  • How do we bring multi-purpose/unrestricted cash to scale?
  • How do we manage and share data in a way that supports the humanitarian community?
  • What is the humanitarian structure that brings in new partners?
  • How can we innovate to ensure tech/AI is part of the solution and not part of the problem?
  • Where does each element of the humanitarian system—UN entities, INGOs, local NGOs–add unique value, and how do we sustain that?
  • How do we bring together scaled up anticipatory action and a green humanitarian reset that is ready for the climate challenges ahead?

 In parallel, we will ask donors to reduce conditionality and reporting requirements, truly step up to the quid pro quo of the Grand Bargain, and provide predictable, flexible funding. Let’s end the expensive and over centralized beauty parade approach to humanitarian financing. We also need to make the case afresh for humanitarian solidarity: nations - beyond governments - should aim to deliver 1 per cent for those in dire need. We need to find and connect with a new movement. 

Alongside practical changes, this is a mindset shift. Fundamentally, radical reform requires those with power to give it away. Everyone in the sector must be asked: what power do you have; and how will you share it? Can what we are doing be better done by the community we are serving?  

This is a journey, not a destination. The humanitarian movement in 2030 will be rooted in the communities we serve, supported by expert prioritization and planning, and using the best of innovation to anticipate crises and deliver value and impact. We will save as many lives as we can, with the resources we have. As a world we will be better at preventing conflicts and preparing humanity for the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. The challenge is not that our critics don’t believe in what we do. It is if we stop believing in why we do it. So, we retain idealism and hope, even now. 

 Especially now.