On 18 June 2025, IFRC Secretary General Jagan Chapagain delivered remarks at the opening session of the United Nation's ‘ECOSOC’ [Economic and Social Council) Humanitarian Affairs Segment at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.
Under discussion was what the humanitarian sector should do to reform at a time of deep cuts in humanitarian funding and mounting needs. [A video of the session can be found here, with remarks from the IFRC Secretary General appearing at about 1 hour 30 minutes into the video].
Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Tom [Fletcher, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator at the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs], for that great introduction and wonderful speech earlier.
On your question [from the moderator, “What do you hope will be key elements of the approach to humanitarian work after the reset?] of course, you heard a lot on the sort of collective reset that Tom had been talking about in the morning, and just now. I would like to share a perspective from IFRC.
Listening
Already late last year, we had initiated the 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 the Red Cross, I believe we have always been very good, but there are always opportunities to gain efficiency, cost-effectiveness and [extend the] reach of our program. And as part of that process, we listened to more than 2000 voices, more than half of them from the local communities. And there are a few ideas emerging which very much align 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, but it is local with accountability, and the accountability, not in the sense of just pushing the risks to the local actors, for sharing the risk, but delivering in an accountable manner. And it's really about the decision-making at the local level. And I think the colleague from Afghanistan [a previous speaker], what she said is that you don't need to push us from abroad. 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, you know, as IFRC, we have been championing the localization, we also believe that the global solidarity is needed in 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 [donors and agencies of Grand Bargain] committed 25% of the internationally mobilized funding that goes to the local actors - we have received only 2% collectively. That must not be good enough for us. Otherwise, we'll keep on talking. So, this is in our hands 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 IFRC we are going to step 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've 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 mechanisms. 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 creeps.” So, I think we need that focus, humanitarian focus. Humanitarian focus and really, really be the discipline… ourselves, so that the Tom’s life becomes very easy and maybe not needed. I think, I think if we can make jobs - 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 the real issue around management diplomacy: around how we preserve, how we preserve our medical 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. So, our call to the government, to the states: I think you really have to uphold your friends accountable, as much as you do to your foes.
In 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 held 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 the placing responsibility of the states.
Most of the crisis that we are seeing now and the pressure on the humanitarian organizations is growing because there haven’t been many political solutions to many of the crises we are dealing with now. Until and unless there are political solutions to these crises, the humanitarians even if we get 200 billion, 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, as a humanitarian system, we also have to adapt to digitalization and ethical adoption of artificial intelligence. And this my son asked me to put that in – he is an artificial intelligence student!
And then finally… Finally, I think it’s extremely important that we as an organization have the capacity and the culture of transformation. The days of 5 years plans, and 10 years plans are gone. Things are changing so rapidly, even the 1-year plans are no longer relevant.
You have to update your plan already less than 6 months. And we can address that only because 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 the wrong thing. It’s not weakness, it’s strength. Only strong people, strong organization, has the ability to do that.
True Reset = Local
So, colleagues, we are here with different rules, experiences, and perspectives, but with only one shared interest. Tom, I am repeating you: how we can work together to better serve our humanity. If we 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. Local and Local.
But local with global solidarity. As local as possible, as international as necessary. So, a true humanitarian 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.