Transcription

• Speaker #0

  Welcome to Voices of Development, the podcast diving into the development and humanitarian sectors. Voices of Development is produced by Supernova and hosted today by Salome Ponsanouet. Yeah, Michael, good afternoon. Thank you very much for being here for Voices of Development. We are very honored to have you.

• Speaker #1

  Thank you very much, Salome. It's a pleasure for me to be here. And I hope what we are going to discuss can be useful for humanitarian aid and international cooperation.

• Speaker #0

  Today, we are exploring the evolution of humanitarian aid and crisis management with Michael Keuler. Michael is an accomplished diplomat and humanitarian expert who served as Deputy Director General for the European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations called DG ECHO at the European Commission from 2019 to 2024 and as Acting Director General of ECHO from 2022 to 2023. He is currently a co-ledger of the Grand Bargain Agreement, which aims to make humanitarian action more effective, efficient and locally driven. He's deep understanding. of both policymaking and field realities provides a unique perspective on the challenges and opportunities facing humanitarian aid today. In this conversation, we'll explore how Europe's approach to humanitarian aid has shifted, the challenges of managing complex crises, and the future of humanitarian reforms. Michael also shares his insights on the importance of localizing aid. addressing sexual bureaucracy and preparing the next generation of humanitarian leaders. Welcome to my conversation with Michael Köhler.

• Speaker #1

  I spent a career in international development and cooperation. I studied first history, Islamic studies, Middle Eastern studies, but also comparative religion, theology and international law at a variety of German universities. And then, you know, somehow through the chances of life, I started a career in international cooperation, beginning as a director for German finance development aid project in Morocco, which had as its objective the creation of women-led cooperatives. After that, I worked in Tunisia. And after about seven years in the field, I was then called back and got an invitation by the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, BMZ. to serve in the policy unit there, which I did. But you know, working in Northern Africa had made me more aware than before of being a European. And so I got interested in the European Union. I applied for the service in the European Commission. And the Commission offered me a job as a desk officer for Yemen and Iraq. And with my Middle East background, I couldn't resist that. So that's how I landed in Brussels. And what followed then was a career of almost 30 years. with 11 different stops, 11 different stations, and it ended as Acting Director General and Deputy Director General for EU Civilian Protection and Humanitarian Aid. Now, since I retired, I'm still in Brussels. I continue with lots of activities, academic activities, but also working with a number of NGOs, a number of think tanks, and some of the listeners may know me as Grand Bargain Ambassador, so I'm... one of the leaders of this international process to render humanitarian aid more effective and efficient.

• Speaker #0

  So let's start maybe by, let's say, the beginning of your career. So you've worked in Morocco and in Tunisia. Those are your two field-based positions, right?

• Speaker #1

  Yes, exactly. So these are the two countries where I was a resident. Of course, I've been working in many other countries, but not as a resident, as a long-term visitor. with long-term missions. But me and my family indeed, we lived in Casablanca and in Tunis between 1987 and 1993.

• Speaker #0

  Did these experiences impacted your willingness to work on the effectiveness of the humanitarian sector and how it contributed to your understanding of the realities of the professionals but also the beneficiaries in the field?

• Speaker #1

  Well you know, at that time I didn't work on humanitarian aid. I worked on development projects, but I think three things happened to me during this period. Because when I started, I started as an academic, as a universitarian, as a researcher. And actually I went there to gain further field experience to nurture my research. And my idea of life was then to go back to university and just become a normal university professor. And it failed miserably. It failed because I got the flavor and the interest in shaping things, changing things, improving things. And for that you have to work in one of the agencies, in one of the instruments of change, and not just analyze change from the outside as you would do in academia. So that was the first big change. The second big change was that of course, you know, nothing beats real life experience. So what you do as an academic is to study things, to understand, to build theory, and I love theory, I have to say. But you know what I learned at that time was the cruel practice and how much it diverges from theory. I also learned that there are other skills than just analyzing that are important. For example, motivating people, for example, rallying them to a cause, for example, also listening to them and understanding what is required. And the third thing, and there you have a bridge towards what later on in my career meant humanitarian aid to me. We all come with our ideas, with our theories. We always think that we have an understanding of the situation on the ground and that we have recipes and instruments to help. But what is so central is to put people first, as we say, to see really what people need. And when you talk to people that you think you work for, you're always surprised by their answers, by their statements, and also by their capacity to analyze their needs. They are not helpless, they are not dumb, they are not left alone. They know exactly what they need and they tell you. So this started to form my conviction that when we organize international aid and cooperation efforts, this needs to be people-based and people-centered. We should not distinguish between humanitarian aid and development aid and other forms of international aid. we should basically check what the problem is and what the people who have the problem really think and then build our response including the instruments to address this response on that basis and we are still unfortunately very far away from that in real life when you are in headquarters and

• Speaker #0

  i think that is true for any kind of headquarters including private sector companies you're always very very far away from the figure before diving deeper let's take a moment to understand it Peace Humanitarian Development Nexus. The Nexus approach aims to bridge the gap between three key areas, humanitarian aid, development assistance, and peacebuilding. Traditionally, these fields have operated separately, with humanitarian aid focusing on immediate relief, development assistance addressing long-term growth, and peacebuilding aiming to prevent and resolve conflicts. The Nexus seeks to integrate these efforts to create more sustainable and resilient outcomes, especially in a fragile context where crisis, poverty and conflict are deeply intertwined. The idea is to ensure that emergency relief not only saves lives but also sets the foundation for long-term development and peace. At Supernovant, we specifically operate in the Nexus.

• Speaker #1

  And you always have the idea that in the field people have gone native, people don't really understand the bigger context, and they have no clue really about the policies. When you're in the field, you exactly see it the other way around. You have the feeling that those people at headquarters are bloodless robots, they have no clue, they don't care, they have no feelings, and so forth. So the first thing you learn that you try to draw consequences from is that the truth is always in the middle. And basically none of these two sides is absolutely right. So what you need is basically when you want to work efficiently, and this is true for the European Commission, but also for any other institution that I could imagine, is that you try to break the walls. The walls between headquarters in the field, the walls between individual policy instruments, the walls between people of different motivation. Some people want to do international cooperation, for example, in order to help people. They have an almost philanthropic approach. Other people want to do international cooperation because they want to pursue interests. Interests, for example, of your own country or your own organization and so forth. So you cannot say one side is right, the other one is wrong. You have to build common ground. I'll give you one example. When I started to work on Yemen, my first job in the European Commission was to be desk officer for Yemen. You know, I started as the one person in the European institutions in charge of relations with Yemen. There was nobody else around. When I started in 1994, Yemen just came out of a civil war and that meant that there was nothing in terms of international cooperation. We could start from scratch. Now, I had almost no money. So I got the ambition to find out how I could mobilize resources for working in Yemen. And I found out, yes, there was one budget line for working in cooperation with countries in Asia. So Yemen being located in Asia would get money from that. But, you know, in comparison to China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Yemen is not one of the big shots. So we got little money and I was not happy with that. So I went through the European budget and I saw that there were budget lines at that time for food aid, or for gender promotion, or for environmental measures, or for the rights of the children. or for tourism promotion and so forth. So at the end I got together a bunch of individual financial sources from which I could really bind together, tie together a nice package of cooperation and development possibilities, including also humanitarian aid. Now that was only possible because I tried to bring together all these various communities, the people who are interested in gender promotion, the people who are interested in environmental projects. People who are interested in food security. And you always need to start learning their language, learning about their interests, about how they tick, so to say, and how you can get them interested in supporting your cause. In the field, then, when you travel to the country and see what happens with the money, all these distinctions don't make an awful lot of sense because you go to a village And their people are hungry, they have health problems, they have problems, for example, in transport to bring their products to the market and therefore earn money. They may have security problems and they may have problems, for example, with no access to telephone or to electronic networks. So what they want from you is a comprehensive solution to their problem. Therefore, we need to bring these instruments together. And, you know, that is, I think, what I've done throughout my career in my various posts to build bridges, to build. task forces to bring people from different ends and different instruments to support the same solution it's an awfully difficult thing but intellectually i think the most interesting thing of what i've been doing at the highest position you held so acting

• Speaker #0

  director of echo how did you manage the pressure between you know or tension between political pressure and The need for fast and efficient ad delivery.

• Speaker #1

  I didn't feel that pressure to be honest. Humanitarian aid, and that's a big difference with respect to development aid, is all about very quick impact aid. Humanitarian aid is only meaningful if it can act within hours. And we have instruments, of course, that make it possible that you tell me, in my country there's an earthquake, we have victims now, and basically this afternoon we start delivering aid. This is possible, this happens every day. and this is what this system is being made for. One little anecdote, you know, when I came to join ECHO, I thought, well, this is the service of the European Union where every day you handle a crisis, so there must be all the time, you know, under power, all the time, you know, running around and, you know, dealing with crisis and having the sense of urgency, and I was absolutely surprised, and I was surprised for all the years that I went there, and how... calm and measured and normal it was. Actually, crisis was being dealt with as the norm. And the entire system is made to deal with crisis. So once there's a new crisis, okay, you have to mobilize people and resources, but there is no feeling of surprise, there's no feeling of panic, there is a very strong feeling of commitment. People work at ECHO because they want to help and they want to be quick and efficient. Now, You spoke about the tension with political expectations. And again, I didn't really feel that well. Maybe the highest level of mismatch between the political expectations and what the system can deliver on the ground, we had at the beginning, but only at the beginning of the war against Ukraine. Simply because at that time, when, you know, the Russian aggression in February 2022, led to already a massive displacement of people inside Ukraine. The Ukrainian government was expecting, of course, immediate humanitarian aid and was very critical of the UN system, for example, for not delivering. And that was somehow also mirrored by the political views in the European system. And one would, of course, understand. But then in all fairness, one would have to say as well that, you know, Ukraine was not a typical country for humanitarian aid before. There was of course humanitarian aid in the eastern oblasts, in the areas that were occupied by Russia already before 2022, and in the bordering regions on the side controlled by the Ukrainian government. But these were small operations. For example, the European Union at that time spent about 25-27 million euros a year for that. These were small amounts. And the international aid organizations were not very prominently represented there. So it took them about two, three months to scale up, to really bring in massive amounts of people, logistics, in a situation of war. That happened. That happened. But still, subjectively, of course, from the Ukrainian point of view, these first two, three months before the system was up to scale felt like being left alone. At that time, political pressure was very strong to deliver faster. But, you know, we couldn't have delivered any faster simply because it takes some time to find people to bring them there.

• Speaker #0

  Let's discuss the core humanitarian principles and how they uphold integrity and accountability in decision-making, particularly within the European Union. The core humanitarian principles are the foundational values that guide humanitarian action worldwide. They are humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence. Within the European Union, these principles are embedded in the work of bodies like ECHO. Upholding these principles helps ensure that humanitarian aid remains focused on those who need it the most, free from political manipulation or corruption. Now, let's hear Michael's insights on how these principles are implemented at the EU level and their role in maintaining integrity and accountability. Throughout your career, what major shifts have you observed in how the EU approaches humanitarian aid?

• Speaker #1

  I think there is a humanitarian aid system before 2010. and after 2010. One could perhaps be more precise and say before 2015. Humanitarian aid was a relatively small policy area for which not many resources were mobilized, neither in terms of money nor in terms of staff, of personnel. It was seen as an expression of the values of a donor. humanitarian values, human rights, respecting human life and so forth. But it was seen, should I say, as a sideshow or something you do when all the important things have been done, as part of philanthropy. It was not seen as a major policy tool. I think that has dramatically changed with all the crises we have gone through since 2015, starting, of course, with the refugee crisis, which was a consequence. of the civil war in Syria. Now, what we have seen ever since, and that is now an experience of about 10 years, is that we have a succession of crises, Syria and the refugees, Afghanistan and also the refugees at some point at least, COVID, Ukraine, but you can name many, many others as well, that have a huge impact on European societies. through migration, but also through being involved somehow, impacted by the conflicts. And policymakers now see that humanitarian aid is part of the instruments to address this crisis, to stabilize and to undo some of the consequences of the crisis. The same thing is true for situations where you have estranged governments. We have seen over the past couple of years a number of countries where after a coup d'etat, a government took over that... in the eyes of the international community is not legitimate. You know, a military coup d'etat, putting aside or pushing aside a democratically elected government, whatever you think about that government, is not something that the international community condones easily, and rightly so. So what has happened then, and you can see this, you know, in Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Mali, in Burkina, and many other countries, what has happened in such cases very often is that leaders, for example, at the level of the G7, or also at the level of the European Council come together and say, well, this is not acceptable, we impose sanctions against those who perpetrated the coup d'etat, who took over illegally, but we don't want to punish the population, therefore we also increase humanitarian aid. So you can take at least ten examples of such international situations where humanitarian aid has been increased not only because there are needs on the ground, But also because major countries in the world and major donors, including the European Union, wanted to show that, you know, they stand by those people who are in need. They don't want to punish the ordinary citizen on the street if they interrupt political relations with the government. So, in a way, political humanitarian aid becomes an instrument there. And that, you know, has happened, I think, everywhere. You can go to the Netherlands, to the United States of America, to... to Saudi Arabia, to Japan, this is something which has become a current feature. Does this mean that humanitarian aid is compromised? I don't think so. Because, let's be honest about it, the allocation of financial means has always been the expression of interest and of, let's say, effectiveness. There has never been a situation where you would make money available for humanitarian aid only on the basis of the sheer needs in the country. And I don't know many organizations, humanitarian organizations, development organizations, that would have refused money if money was offered only because a donor has a political interest to help in a situation. And I think the consensus more or less is that as long as you can implement... these financial resources, faithfully and faithful to your humanitarian principles. And as long as nobody basically tells you, well, you get this money, but you have to fulfill a number of conditions, political conditions, as long as that is the case, you do it. And that is what has happened over the past year. So today, humanitarian aid is different from what it was in 2010. It is much bigger, although also much insufficient. But secondly, it is concentrated, I would say 80% of your maternity aid goes today to long-term protracted crises. So it's no longer the old case of maternity aid where you help people who suffer from the consequences of a natural disaster. You help them for two, three months, maybe six months. and to rebuild and after a year you're out. Today the new normal is that you are in a conflict that is man-made, that may have also other causes like climate change, but basically it's man-made. And you need to help people to survive, not only for one or two years, but often for 20 years or longer. The longest case is, of course, Palestine, where you have humanitarian aid now for 60, 70 years.

• Speaker #0

  With the budgets growing for protracted crisis, Is humanitarian aid still agile and able to react to natural disasters, for example, or like I would say, crises that emerge all of a sudden? Is it still feasible?

• Speaker #1

  It has to be feasible and it depends on the system of every single donor and every single implementing organization in which way it is flexible, right? Usually what happens when a major crisis erupts Let's take COVID as an example. There are two things. First, additional money is identified. Now, what does additional money mean? It can come from general reserves. The eight budgets that I know usually are budgets which are not totally programmed. In the budget, you have always an unprogrammed reserve that is meant to cover new unforeseen crises or Existing crises that get much worse, which was not foreseen in the beginning. So you need to have a flexible reserve in your budget. But you know, if something really big happens, such as the outbreak of a pandemic like COVID, then of course these budgets are not enough. So every single country that I know, and that is a donor country, mobilized additional reserves from the general budget or from basically new national budgets, where they went back to the beginning. to the banks and, you know, underwrote further debt in order to have more money. Now, this happens, of course, only in the situation of a national emergency, but COVID was a national emergency. And fortunately, very soon during the COVID crisis, leaders in Europe, in the United States and in many other countries noticed very quickly that you have to approach this globally. So you cannot only fight this at home. You also need to have those who are on the African continent, Latin America, Asia and so forth. So flexibility through inbuilt flexibility, flexibility through additional resources that come. But then a very important form of flexibility is also the third flexibility, that you need to be able to have legal arrangements with your partners that make it possible to redirect already ongoing existing projects when there's a new emergency. Now in the EU system, and I think many countries have similar systems, You have so-called crisis modifiers, which allow you, once a new emergency comes, to shift the money into a new direction that is maybe more urgent.

• Speaker #0

  How to arbitrate between two emergencies?

• Speaker #1

  That is, of course, a very tricky thing. And actually, when you work in humanitarian aid, you could argue that you have only emergencies. It's not that... you know the latest crisis like say sudan or so is is an emergency and you know you have other emergencies that are then no longer an emergency humanitarian aid is about making people survive and therefore budget negotiations are always extremely tough because you know that behind every thousand euros dollars swiss francs norwegian krona or so that you talk about there are people that suffer or that can be helped in their suffering with this money. So there's always an emergency, so to say. But usually, you know, when there is a really new conflict, you get fresh money. I mean, that's my experience over the past years. Money is never enough. But if there is a real emergency, usually the budget authorities in, you know, donor countries and so forth recognize that this is something which you must do. In addition, you cannot basically milk the existing recipients of aid in order to help out with this problem. This always works in the beginning of the crisis. The real problem starts after two or three years if a crisis becomes protracted. Because, you know, after two or three years, all the emergency instruments have run dry. They have no more money. And then after two or three years, the problem really starts. And you say, listen, is it really possible to pump additional money into this new conflict and therefore basically not really extend our financial exposure in other conflicts? That's a big problem. But, you know, in the beginning there's usually additional money. But if you have to decide, You know, quality criteria come into play, of course. So, for example, do we have access? And that's perhaps also behind, one of the reasons behind, the relatively hesitant mobilization of aid in a huge crisis such as the Sudanese crisis. Of course, we all know it has become one of the biggest displacement crises in the world, if not the biggest. We know that there are millions of people who are suffering, many, many die. The problem is who has access? It doesn't help to mobilize all your resources. If then the money or if the goods are stuck somewhere in Port Sudan or somewhere at the border and cannot go, for example, into Darfur, then possibly it's better to use your money at this moment in time for other crises, although you know the need would be there in Sudan. It's a cruel decision, but sometimes we have to be realistic and see what we can really do with the money.

• Speaker #0

  Yeah, and here maybe would be a transition to head localization. Working more and more and more with local actors and supporting their professionalization too might be an answer also to this question of access, no? What is aid localization? Aid localization is about shifting power, resources, and decision-making from international organizations to local and national actors. It ensures that communities directly affected by crisis lead the response and shape how aid is delivered. The idea is to empower local organizations, who are often the first responders, make aid faster, more efficient and culturally appropriate by using local knowledge and systems. Promote fairness by amplifying local voices in humanitarian decision-making. However, localization faces real challenges. Funding gaps limit direct financial support to local actors. Capacity constraints can make it hard for local organizations to meet international standards. Trust and accountability between international donors and local partners need to be strengthened. In the next segment, Michael dives into these challenges. He provides key insights on how localizations can succeed, especially with the rise of new donors from the global south.

• Speaker #1

  At least it is well established that local actors by and large are extremely competent. that they know the crisis, they know the people on the ground, they have access that nobody else has. And in many cases, they are the answer to the problem. There are some exceptions to that rule. For example, it can also be, of course, how should I say, a disadvantage to be too much part of the local society, too much impacted by conflicts in a society and so forth. But by and large, localization is the right step. And this is generally acknowledged. I mean, you know, the... The school books are full of it, so to say. The theory is there. What is lacking behind is the practice for the time being. But localization has become a norm. Now, the best proof for that is if you go to a given humanitarian crisis and see who's really acting on the ground, you will see two things. First, most international organizations that act in this country act actually through local intermediaries. And this in the most... dire circumstances, you know, in South Sudan or in the north of Yemen or wherever, you know, you have highly competent national or regional organizations, NGOs, doctors, what have you, that are really carrying out the work and that are good enough to be contracted by, for example, UNICEF or by others. So if, you know, professional international organizations such as UNICEF have the feeling. that the local Yemeni NGO is a good contract partner to carry out the work, then nobody can tell us that they are unable to do it. So the question of whether we cannot create a larger basis, a more solid and long-lasting basis for localization. But there is a problem, of course. The problem is first that it's a long way from where the money is to the local organization. And, of course, donors... usually operated on the basis of public funding. Of course there is also private funding that goes into the humanitarian aid sector and of course there is also funding from countries that don't have, you know, for example, European system of auditing. But most of the country, especially of course official development assistance, comes at the end of the day from public budgets. And that means there are lots of rules to be respected. And therefore, The question of de-risking has become extremely important in the humanitarian debate, including, for example, last week at the annual assembly of the Grand Bargain. Because, you know, if you give money to somebody to implement development aid, there needs to be a fair share of the risk. You cannot say, I give you money and you have to take all the risk. And if the money is then, you know, for example, embezzled or if there's fraud, then you have to pay me back everything. And you cannot overburden local organizations with reporting duties that you can only live up with if you live in Switzerland, for example, and have extremely modern and sophisticated accounting system and so forth. So this has become a big problem to create, so to say, the right link between the source of money and the local organization. The second problem is, of course, that most of the donors, and that's a consequence of what I just said, have legal systems that make it very, very difficult to fund local organizations directly. So then the question arises, is it possible and is it perhaps the right approach to do it? change those administrative and legal systems? Or is it rather necessary to build somehow bridges to overcome the legal restraints? And the third problem, one should not underestimate that, is that we are living in a situation where humanitarian budgets do not rise any longer. They were increasing, they have been increasing, basically ever since 2013, but now we have reached a level of stagnation. By the way, the same thing is true for development budgets, but development budgets altogether are still higher. It started with the United Kingdom, then followed by the United States, then Germany, now also the Netherlands and Belgium, and I think the European Union will not escape from that, that budgets at best stagnate, in real terms reduce, so that, you know, the total amount of money in the humanitarian aid sector today is not as much as it is today. is already much smaller than what it was, for example, in 2023. The cake becomes smaller. And if you then see that basically every organization in the humanitarian aid sector, UN organizations, but also UNICEF, sorry, also the Red Cross, and every NGO from the big international ones like the Norwegian Refugee Council to very small local ones, they all live on the overheads that they can charge once... they win a contract for a project, for example. Then you can see that, of course, this shrinking cake makes it very difficult to be more generous with local organizations. Because if you shift more money to local organizations, it logically means that those who have been benefiting from the system so far have to reduce. And we have seen this already in some cases, like the International Committee of the Red Cross or the World Food Programme. who had to reduce very significantly their stuff numbers. I mean, laying off, for example, 25% of their stuff because of reduced income. So this is really a harsh reality. In such a situation, it happens that many in the sector basically say, let's continue as we have done in the past. Let's just withdraw to what is really our core business. Let's not go for any new experiments. We don't know whether it's going to work. Let's basically withdraw to the essentials. So there is perhaps a little bit less courage in the sector today than in the past, and a little bit less openness to go local. At the same time, major donors like ECHO, like USAID and so forth, have adopted localization guidelines. So they are basically forcing their partners to increase the share of local spending Not only projects that they do through local partners, but also the funding, the core funding that they give to local partners.

• Speaker #0

  But do you believe it is realistic to expect the large donors and the large agencies to become more agile in their field approach? Or are they too rigid?

• Speaker #1

  I think it is realistic. to be honest, because I firmly believe that the aid system that we know today will not be as we know it today in 20 years from now. Already today, you see the emergence of three different aid systems. The one that we know, and you know, the representatives of which meet in Geneva, and we discuss and come with common ideas and so forth, with the traditional donors. And these traditional donors have less money. Then there is a second aid system that not many people know much about, which is basically funded by the Gulf countries, in particular by Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Qatar, to a certain extent also by Kuwait. They were part of this old humanitarian system, but over the past five, six years, they have basically left the system, not by announcement, but de facto. For example, they don't respond any longer to UN appeals. They don't attend donors conferences, or if they attend, they're simply physically there without pledging money. But at the same time, they're doing a lot, except that they don't announce it any longer in international conferences. They don't send their figures to the OECD in Paris or to OCHR in Geneva or in New York. They're not being tracked with what they're doing. They're using their own channels, the Red Crescent, Muslim NGOs, foundations, or they work directly with governments. So... they are setting up their own system in a way. But through the system they are mobilizing billions and billions. And then there's a third system which I think is slowly emerging. especially in Asia, countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, India to an extent, but I'm sure it will also go into Latin America, for example, and maybe also Africa, where you have emerging countries, countries that are now the leaders of the G20, for example, that form part of the BRICS, some of them at least, who become de facto more and more active in humanitarian aid. They may not necessarily call it. humanitarian aid. They may call it, for example, disaster relief or climate action. They intervene, for example, when there is a natural disaster in a neighboring country. But de facto, what they do is humanitarian aid. And, you know, so far there's hardly any exchange of views, any contact, any coordination between this new system either. If, however, we think that, you know, the aid needs in future with climate change, with ongoing conflicts and so forth, are going to be that big that the old-fashioned system that we know, that I grew up with, so to say, will no longer be enough to tackle all the problems. So if that is our conviction, we have to... think about how we can make our system evolve. And one of the answers is we need to be more inclusive. We need to be more southern. The future humanitarian aid system, you know, in the next generation, needs to be a system where everybody contributes, where you have not only the United States, Germany, Norway, the European Union, Sweden, and so forth as donors, but you would also have a donor called Malaysia, a donor called Indonesia, a donor called Brazil, and so forth. And I think it's only fair to say just as much as Western-based NGOs benefit from Western-based funding, also Southern NGOs should benefit from the funding that will come from all kinds of sources in the future. If we don't manage that and therefore also come to a stronger local approach, Frankly, our system will be increasingly insufficient financially, but also in terms of the performance that we can show.

• Speaker #0

  Thank you very much for this discussion. We are almost at the end already. I would like to ask you a last question that is turned toward the future and especially. the young professionals that you know based on your career on what you've learned on success failures maybe what would you say to a young professional that would like to join the sector these

• Speaker #1

  are interesting questions i you know in my own career humanitarian aid came very late I have a professional career of say 37, 38 years, but only the last five years were about humanitarian aid. So I wouldn't say I stumbled into it. It was not totally by chance. But I did many things before and I think this is part of what it should be. Of course, there are many people who spend their entire life in the humanitarian sector. And I have... I have... highest respect for these people, but they are dangerous. They are dangerous that they become, they go too native, they become too much part of the system, they don't have enough innovative ideas any longer, and frankly they might burn out. I mean, I've seen so many colleagues who have spent many years of their life in the hot spots of humanitarian aid, you know, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and at some point you have the feeling They become slightly too cynical. They're still working very hard, they're still very committed, but you would hope that at some point they also see another form of life. Therefore, I think it is good if we have fresh blood in the sector, it is good if you have fresh skills. Now, for a young person that wants to join the sector today, I believe... probably not the right idea is to do a master's program in humanitarian studies, but rather acquire skills that can be useful. I hope at least that for example digitalization, especially artificial intelligence, including on foresight, will have a game-changing impact on the sector. We need more people of that kind. We need more people who know basically how to make artificial intelligence useful for humanitarian aid. Or another example. Traditional humanitarian aid is based on grants. First private donations and now the grants of public budgets. This is good, but we see the money is insufficient. I personally believe very much in innovative financial instruments. There are a thousand things that you can do with soft loans, with other forms, with bonds, with insurance solutions and so forth. But how many people do we have in the humanitarian sector who have a background in banking? How many of us have spent 10 years at a stock exchange, for example? So I think we need to be reaching out much more to other communities. And I would like to see much more development and much more exchange between them. Just as much as I believe that big corporations, you know, that are producing cars or producing chemical products, would do very well to have a couple of people in their public relations departments who have spent their life in humanitarian aid and therefore know something about the responsibility that these companies have. for example, in the global south, just as much I believe that people who have this kind of, you know, hard, tough market experience should perhaps at some point also join the humanitarian sector for a couple of years. So for me, humanitarian work is a conviction. It's a mindset. But it doesn't mean that you should spend your entire career into it, because otherwise, you know, it becomes simply too dry, too little innovative. And that would be my recommendation.

• Speaker #0

  Wow, thank you on those wise words. Thank you very much for participating in the podcast here, Michael.

• Speaker #1

  Thank you so much, Dominique.

• Speaker #0

  Thank you all for listening to this episode. We hope you enjoyed it as much as we did. Please feel free to share it, comment it, and give us five stars on your favorite listening platform. It's an invaluable way for... people to get to know us. We are also keen to hear your recommendations, so if there is anyone you'd like to hear on our mic, please let us know. See you soon!