John Phillips
Humanitarian Advisor
New York, New York
AS DELIVERED
Thank you, Chair, and all of our briefers today.
The United States strongly supports the humanitarian pillar of reforms under UN80, as well as the related reform processes under the Humanitarian Reset.
However, while we support these reforms generally, we reject the branding of these processes as a “New Humanitarian Compact.” This language serves only to distort and confuse as to the nature of the reform. We strongly recommend the UN give up on this needless attempt at branding a subset of reforms.
And while we are pleased with the overall direction, we are disappointed that the briefing materials for today’s meeting enumerate several “tangible actions” that are plainly intangible. By the time of the next meeting, we expect briefing materials to provide specific, measurable information, to include timelines of when each action began and is expected to end, which specific entity will take the action, and estimated cost savings associated with the action. We also expect more frequent updates on the status of reform efforts.
The United States is particularly supportive of integrated global- and crisis-level humanitarian supply chains. We are closely monitoring the pilot implementation of integrated supply chains in five crisis contexts. We look forward to receiving more information on the timeline of the pilots’ implementation and how those pilots are being evaluated. If formal evaluation reports are produced, we will expect copies to be shared with Member States.
On the Humanitarian Data Collaborative, we believe this is an important and overdue reform. We hope it will build on lessons of past humanitarian data sharing arrangements. We request a focused briefing on this subject at the end of June when the project transitions to its next phase and more details on how collective financing will support shared data and reduce duplication across the system.
The UN80 Collaborative Humanitarian Diplomacy Initiative is currently too vaguely presented in the briefing materials and we’d like to hear more. How will changing coordination processes yield meaningful change for people affected by crisis? And how is this reform under UN80 different from the analogous reform under the Humanitarian Reset?
Lastly, while we welcome the effort to align roles and responsibilities, there is similarly nothing specific presented in the briefing materials. Telling Member States that agencies, funds, and programs will “continue to do” this alignment is not enough. We expect much more thorough information that outlines in specific, measurable terms how functions or programs that are deemed duplicative are being phased out or the justification for their retention.
Thank you.
###