Inklings | What do humanitarian donors think about the “reset”?

This is Inklings, where we explore how aid works in the wilds of humanitarian hubs, on the front lines of emergency response, or in the dark corners of aid punditry.

It’s also available as an email newsletter. Subscribe here.

Today: Gaza Humanitarian Foundation omnishambles, why there’s chatter on pooled funds, and who gets a say on reforms.

On the radar |

Gaza aid: Israel’s militarised aid chaos is unfolding with scenes of hungry civilians fenced in like cattle, shots fired, and some dubious new terminology (can one “dissipate” aid?). The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the murky outfit implementing the widely criticised plan to divert food through weaponised hubs, is losing its PR fight – but it’s hard to convey stability when your director quits and your public face is an email address. People with humanitarian links but unconfirmed ties to the organisation are distancing themselves (some not very publicly, oddly) faster than you can google “where’s david beasley?”. Those taking their place are doing so just as quietly.

• The letter: Some aid groups find themselves caught in the mud. A 22 May GHF letter to Israeli authorities, which circulated among aid types late last week, noted meetings “with the CEOs of Save the Children, International Medical Corps, Catholic Relief Services, Mercy Corps, Care, and Project HOPE”. This prompted swift denials of involvement from some (and one no comment).

• Why: The GHF had recently reached out to NGOs to meet, said an aid worker, who saw the letter as an attempt to build legitimacy by name-dropping established humanitarian groups. This leads to another question: UN agencies and NGOs had already condemned the GHF plan in a show of consensus. What do NGOs have to gain by engaging privately?

Donor signals |

With the US aid architecture dismantled, the EU suddenly finds its weight and influence across the global humanitarian sector has multiplied. The European Union is typically a top-5 donor to globally funded responses, on top of individual largesse from the likes of Germany, the Nordic countries, and other governments. How will they wield their collective influence on a sector desperately looking for leadership (or, at least, for deeper pockets)?

May’s European Humanitarian Forum was a chance to find out. That might explain why the Brussels get-together was a hot ticket for those with means and willingness to stand in an opening-day queue that snaked around the block. The now-annual Euroforum combines obligatory aid panels with sideline chats and fingerfood as aid doers and donors (and a few D2-ers) rub shoulders.

For some attendees, there’s a sense of resigned urgency amid the system’s existential funding crisis: Many came to see who’s still here, compare notes, and maybe grab a few minutes of facetime with a key donor.

But as with most humanitarian conferences, the urgency of the moment doesn’t quite match what’s on offer.

Those who might have expected a turning point on Gaza – as Israel attempts to militarise aid for a starving population – found scant mentions on the official agenda.

Those searching for solutions for the sector’s funding crisis attended knowing full well that it’s not just the US, and European nations like Germany are among the ones leading the way in cutting humanitarian budgets.

And those looking for two-way conversations on humanitarian reform heard rehearsed lines – and what sounds like donor signoff on the largely opaque “reset” process pushed by the UN.

Gaza: Gaza wasn’t exactly ignored at Euroforum, but a panel title like “Crises in the Middle East: challenge of safeguarding lives and upholding international humanitarian law” takes a rather winding route to get to the point. 

• Boos: Some rare heckling highlighted the contrast between what people want and what they get at an inherently political event. The opening session heard shouted audience interventions calling for more attention on Gaza. Moderator Maciej Popowski, a Polish diplomat who heads the EU’s aid arm, ECHO, warned one person that he would be removed by security.

• Applause: Meanwhile, UNRWA boss Philippe Lazzarini received a long applause when introduced at a later session, then a standing ovation after he spoke. Israel has long targeted the UN’s agency for Palestinian refugees.

• Aid: With Euroforum as a backdrop, several humanitarian donors (including EU nations and officials) released a statement with a rare admonishment of Israel. It critiqued the “new model for delivering aid into Gaza” and warned against “any demographic change” in Palestinian territory. Some saw it as a relatively robust message, but it also underlines the contradictions baked into a forum like EHF, and into the international aid system itself. Several of the signatory governments are staunch backers of Israel, and also the biggest funders of humanitarian response: They hold a lit match in one hand, and a thimble of water in the other.

Donors and the reset: In public, at least, government donors seem to be throwing their weight behind UN relief chief Tom Fletcher’s so-called humanitarian reset. “There’s not enough funding, and the system needs to be more efficient,” the Danish state secretary for development policy, Elsebeth Søndergaard Krone, told Fletcher during that heckled session, commenting on his proposed reset. ”We are fully supportive of the work, and let us know what we can do.” This echoes more carefully worded support from the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and others a few days earlier at the UN in New York, where Fletcher had briefed member states “on the humanitarian landscape”.

• Influence: Much ink(lings) has been spilled over the closed-door nature of the reset. Details have mainly been limited to Fletecher’s newsletter, a couple of letters and X threads, snippets of public comments, and whatever this infographic is saying. Conversations at Euroforum and elsewhere underscore that a very small circle of people have eyeballs on what’s happening – and even some that do warn that the top-down process is dominated by UN agencies more concerned about turf than transformation. Money talks, and those who can speak the loudest are the ones who hold the purse strings. If top humanitarian donors are content with progress on the reset, is there any chance of something more inclusive?

The chatter on pooled funds: Fletcher has taken a recent shining to pooled funds, which appear to be shaping up as a stand-in for deeper systemic changes on financing. During his UN briefing, Fletcher floated a proposal that a third (or more) of donor funding go to so-called country-based pooled funds. He also touted CERF, the UN’s quick response fund. Conveniently, they’re all managed by OCHA.

• On one hand: Fletcher’s push for pooled funds is understandable. More funding for collective funding pots might erect a taller wall between donors and humanitarians, at a time when financial dependence has compromised principles. Substantial pooled funding might steer money to where there’s greater need instead of political interest, and save humanitarians from going cap in hand to donors each time an emergency flares. Fletcher also notes that a rising proportion of pooled funds has gone to local humanitarian groups. 

• On the other: Many grassroots organisations say OCHA-run funds still aren’t particularly accessible. Pooled funds also don’t address long-term concerns around power imbalances and risk-sharing. The sector could dramatically increase its contributions to pooled funds and still make little dent on its localisation promises (which are nominally also a part of the reset). If money is power, then a significant funding shift to country-based pooled funds and CERF might cement it further in the hands of the UN system (and, oddly, OCHA in particular). 

• Will it float? Donors will always want to spend their money where and how they like. But at the same time, they see the value in pooled funds. Since the grants are administered by a trusted party, they take some of the risk out of direct funding, and – especially for smaller government donors – make it easier to fund local organisations. 

• Other pools of thought: There are alternatives to the larger UN-run pooled funds. The START Fund has been around since 2014. NEAR, the network of local civil society groups, created a locally governed Change Fund with 300 vetted organisations in 2022. In Ukraine, civil society groups are developing a Ukrainian-run fund. In Myanmar, local networks are positioning themselves as intermediaries, arguing they’re better placed than the UN or international NGOs to channel funding. Some came to Brussels armed with donor sales pitches.

• Either way: K-pop fanbases still have untapped funding potential.

Data points |

What is the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation giving to people in Gaza? According to Middle East Eye:

• 1 litre of oil
• 2 kg of rice
• 4 kg of flour
• 1 kg of beans
• 4 cans of tuna
• 1 jar of stuffed grape leaves
• 1 jar of apricot jam
• 1 box of biscuits
• 6 packets of spaghetti
• 1 box of tea bags

End quote |

“As local as possible, as international as necessary.”

Who gets a say on humanitarian reforms? There’s lots of chatter about the reset and the wider UN80 reform process. The former will see in-country coordination structures consolidated and revamped; the latter could see mergers of big UN agencies.

International aid leaders like to namecheck “localisation” when talking about reforms, but many local humanitarian leaders say they’re not part of the discussion.

“People are talking now about the UN80. That's a closed-door conversation that happened up there,” Gloria Soma, executive director of Titi Foundation, a South Sudanese NGO, told us. “Was there ever any consultation on the ground? Not really.” 

Here’s more of what she had to say:

“I've not heard of local actors actively coming in to give their inputs. We are seeing the humanitarian coordination architecture, and the settings that are ongoing, and merging some of the sector coordination mechanisms, right? We're not inputting a lot into that conversation. 

“The conversation is happening, and then it's information coming from up, downwards: ‘Oh, they're deciding to do this.’ So where are the local actors and the impacted communities in that conversation? 

“And you want to talk about reforms. Are we talking about reforms, really, or are we just trying to patch the holes that we've known for a very long time within those systems?” 

A familiar refrain has crept back into humanitarian speeches in hubs like Brussels, Geneva, and New York: “As local as possible, as international as necessary.”

The phrase saturated the aftermath of 2016’s World Humanitarian Summit, where the sector’s localisation promises were codified. 

It’s the kind of please-all line bespoke to a sector that yearns for change but is built to guard the status quo: A bold but poorly defined idea; a caveat so vague that nearly anyone can squeeze their mandate inside.

Several speakers from donor governments and international organisations took the phrase for a spin at Euroforum. 

For them, it’s still positive and aspirational. For local humanitarian leaders in the audience, it’s a punchline, triggering eyerolls and snickers.

Have any tips, recommendations, or indecipherable acronyms to share with the Inklings newsletter? Get in touch: [email protected]