100. The Big Chill

[Lars Peter Nissen] (0:49 - 2:18)

It's been a while since you've heard from us, and the main reason for that is that we didn't know what to do with episode 100.

We wanted to do something special, but we didn't really have any great ideas or the energy to go through all of the previous episodes and pick out the best bits, and we had different things we discussed. But all of our problems were solved when the new American administration decided to suspend all US foreign aid and send a shockwave through the humanitarian and development sectors. So we called up old friends of the pod, Michael Barnett from the US, Meg Sattler, who was in Australia when we recorded this, and Harpinder Collacot, or simply Pin, who was in the UK.

And the four of us sat down and had a really good conversation, a difficult conversation, about the meaning of what we all have been worrying about for the past week. I won't say much more to introduce the conversation. Please enjoy it.

And this time, we really want to hear from you. We feel like there hasn't been enough debate in the sector of this. So let's hear some clear voices in reaction to the conversation you're about to hear.

Enjoy the conversation. Michael Barnett, Harpinder Collacot, and Meg Sattler. Welcome to Trumanitarian.

[Meg Sattler] (2:19 - 2:21)

Thank you. Thank you for having us. Thank you.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (2:22 - 3:20)

Michael, you are a true American. You're a professor at George Washington University and a student of humanitarianism. Pin, you're the director of Foresight Social Ventures and the interim director of something called the Global Public Investment Network.

And Meg Sattler, of course, you are the CEO of Ground Truth Solution. And it's fantastic to have all three of you here. Because we're going to discuss what is, I think, the most dramatic shift in the humanitarian industry that I have experienced in my career.

The freeze, the hopefully temporary freeze, that the new American administration has imposed on all US foreign aid funding. It has sent a shock through the humanitarian sector. And Michael, since you are a true American, and nice to meet the locals, I'd like to say, why don't you begin by telling us what's going on?

[Michael Barnett] (3:22 - 9:58)

Yeah. You know, in some ways, it's all quite a shock. But in other ways, Trump has been telegraphing what he's going to do in these first 100 days for quite some time.

And if we don't know, it's because we didn't want to know. Or we've been a little bit in denial. But I think since, you know, last Monday, we don't have that luxury anymore.

Because he's shown us what he's going to do. And, you know, to put this in a slightly bigger picture, in terms of what I see right now in American politics more generally, is that, you know, him and Elon Musk and all these other efficiency experts are really trying to tear down, in many ways, the columns of the American government. And they're, you know, we'll have to see if they're successful.

There are a lot of court challenges already, including this one. But right now, everybody is kind of on their heels playing defense. And meanwhile, he keeps, you know, lobbying in more and more grenades.

So George Washington University has been scrambling to figure out what this means for our federally funded projects, research, activities, and everything else. So this is going on nationally. It's not just the aid industry that's feeling this kind of pain.

The foreign aid is a shock. I mean, this is actually foreign aid has been one of those things that's had bipartisan support over the decades. And we'll have to see how Congress responds.

There are court challenges right now that Trump doesn't have the authority to suspend or terminate appropriations that went through Congress. And so we'll have to see how that plays itself out. I, you know, not to bring more bad news, though, to the situation in terms of the foreign aid assistance, I don't see this as 90 days.

This is not going to be 90 days. And people who are planning for this to all be over by June 1st are, I think, are kidding themselves. First off, there was a decapitation strike against USAID.

So anybody who might have stood and opposed this have been removed. I mean, it looks like one of those old Soviet-style apparatchik purges, putches. Right now, as I understand it from someone who was in the Biden administration at USAID, those who are remaining are being deluged with forms, requests, demands for information that apparently will take, you know, if you have to comply with them, will take months to actually deliver back to Elon Musk and others.

So I think there's that. My sense is that the language is sort of ominous in the sense that will it follow American interests? There's, you know, Trump never talks about values.

So this is not going to be a question of values, although we saw that there was a, you know, a slight retreat when it came to some funding for lifesaving assistance. But this will be about interests, as he says, and he said many, many times, why do we keep giving money to countries that don't respect us as if that's the measure of foreign aid? And, you know, it wouldn't surprise me if the U.S. begins to develop a pattern then that looks more like China and Russia and others that prefer bilateral as opposed to multilateral assistance. We've always had, you know, a fair bit of that as well. But, you know, whether in fact the U.S. supports multilateral organizations, I mean, we've already seen him withdraw from, you know, WHO and the Paris Climate Agreement. I think that's a first start.

Again, I think we're going to see more of that sort of just simply kicking the legs out of the multilateral system as best he can. And so I think there will be bilateralism will become part of the new principles. And, you know, we'll see then a further instrumentalization of foreign aid and foreign assistance.

And that's always been something that's been with us. That's not new. Trump didn't start it.

It didn't start, you know, with World War II or World War I even. There will be the instrumentalization of assistance. And I think the expectation is that, you know, aid agencies play ball.

You saw the first response by InterAction, which was clumsy, but basically trying to demonstrate that it could play ball and that it would be pleased to be helpful to the Trump administration when it came to China or other big security issues. And so, you know, this is all part of a chain of events that suggests a much more targeted use of foreign aid. But again, I don't know if it'll return to normal, whatever that is, any time in the near future.

I guess I would prepare for the worst.

Yeah, it does look like a shock and awe to begin with. Then you flood the zone with all sorts of nonsense. You peddle back a little bit when it gets too ugly.

And meanwhile, you fire all the staff. So actually, it's not possible to follow any sort of direction.

If I could just add one more thing, you know, as I think most people know, there are these horrendous wildfires taking place in California. And, you know, I wouldn't say U.S. government always responded unconditionally when there are disasters at home. But he's been very clear and crass about that he expects a quid pro quo, that if in fact you want federal assistance, even while I'm going to be demolishing FEMA, then you're going to have to give me what I want in terms of voting access.

And so it's not just simply the world that's being played in this very cruel way. It's also Americans at home.

Thank you, Michael. Meg, from your perspective, what does this whole thing look like?

Yeah, thank you. And thanks so much, Michael, for your comments, because they really made me think. I think one of the things to me that has been so striking this week is that humanitarians have this amazing way of siloing themselves and talking as though nothing exists except humanitarian action.

And I found that really interesting because we're talking so much about this funding cut as though we exist in this perfect world. And then what's happened is that money has been taken away from it. And that's kind of it.

And I think what really scares me about that is that it's not just the money. It's that even if the funding hadn't been taken away, there's all the stuff around the edges of humanitarianism that are going to completely change the face of humanitarian action and the conditions in which humanitarian action exists. There's a message that's being sent that fundamentally says some people in this world just don't matter anymore.

And that is really scary. And I can see this attack on multilateralism because we all know how imperfect those systems are. We all work in them.

We all criticize them every day. But what they do is they allow a space where certain norms and principles are accepted. None of them are perfect, but they send a message that says there is a common understanding of basic rights and dignity.

And children have a right to live no matter who they are. And women have a right to look after their bodies. People have a right to dignity.

All of that is being thrown out the window now. And the implications of that are so terrifying because if you look at the outskirts of humanitarian aid, I really hate the way people talk about life-saving assistance, whether it's the American government or OCHA or whoever. Because who is to determine what life-saving assistance actually is?

And also, is it enough for us to say all we want to do is keep certain people alive and that's enough? You know, and you sort of see the implications of that in a place like Gaza. And so, I don't know.

I mean, the actions around aid, like the implications on organizations who are trying to protect journalists who are telling the truth in a place like Myanmar or cuts to funding for projects that look at child trafficking, for example, are not considered life-saving. And I just think the implications in terms of accepted norms and behaviors, the humanitarian caseload, as it were. I mean, this is all just a complete scary mess.

So, it feels like we're heading into quite dark times.

Thank you, Meg. Pin, you used to be the CEO of Development Initiative. When you look back at how funding for the humanitarian sector has evolved over the past 10, 20 years, and you then look at what the Americans actually are interested in, what they are funding, what are you thinking in terms of the impact that this cut will have?

Gosh, it's a very big question, Lars-Peter. Let me start by trying to put some perspective on this from a data side, and I think just to understand the scale of the potential damage we are looking at here. So, just in the wider context, aid stands, the latest figures we've got, is about 223 billion.

And it's been in response to the need. But yet, we're still very much aware, we talk about this every year, when OCHA data comes out, that need is far exceeding the pace at which finance is increasing. So, there's never enough.

There is never enough aid. But when we start to look at this from the perspective of the role of the US; the US, despite what it gives and how it gives it, despite the fact it's only giving 0.24% of its wealth, GNI, it's still the largest donor in the world. Of the 28 DAC donors, the US remains the largest.

So, for every $10 that's provided in aid, not just humanitarian aid, but aid more generally, $4 of that comes from the US. So, that demonstrates how significant this stop work, this aid freeze is going to have on all of the programs around the world. It's really quite significant.

And the way to look at this is Germany is the second largest donor, but that stands at 37.9 billion. So, in comparison to the US's 66 billion, it's nearly 50% below the US. So, this is a significant impact.

And as Michael pointed out in his rather sobering analysis, a lot of that funding also goes to the multilateral system. The multilateral system heavily relies upon the US to fund its programming. And without that, partners such as WHO, we know, all of a sudden lost 600 million overnight.

UN AID's budget, 25% of its budget is made up from US funding, a quarter of its budget. And it's the health sector, actually, that's going to be one of the biggest losers here, because the health sector is the major sector that is funded by the US. So, there's going to be significant impact across the board.

Health, followed by humanitarian, education, and agriculture. Those are the biggest four areas that US funding goes to. It goes to a lot of other places as well, including CSOs.

But actually, we're already starting to see the impact this is having on the health sector. So, meetings are happening in Geneva this week. I know I've got colleagues and friends who have been there, really thinking about what does this mean for programming, particularly programming through PEPFAR.

So, this is a big program of the US. It's been one of the most successful flagship programs of the US government. It's been running for 21 years now.

And it's been supporting people living with HIV, AIDS, and also working on prevention in the HIV, AIDS sector as well. Annually, it's reaching 20 million people, 20 million people around the world with ARV treatments. So, this program is saving 20 million people's lives a year.

And it's largely some of the world's most poorest countries, like Mozambique, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, South Africa. These are the countries that are going to be most affected by the loss of this funding, because most of the PEPFAR funding goes into supporting health programming in these countries. And already, what we've seen, what I've heard from my colleagues, I've got some excellent colleagues who are working in South Africa, overnight, they can no longer give out antivirals.

Every day, people are coming in to get their antivirals. All of a sudden, they can't give them out. There's been apparently an exemption in DC, but that hasn't, that communication hasn't actually faltered down.

There's complete chaos. So, they're sending people away without antivirals. And at the end of the day, that means children being born to HIV, AIDS mothers are no longer going to be tested for HIV, AIDS.

So, they are likely to be infected by HIV. It's because they cannot get the drugs immediately. And there's cancer screening that PEPFAR provides as well.

And where it's not providing the ARVs, they're also providing the health clinicians. They're providing the infrastructure. So, if the Global Fund is providing the ARVs, you're seeing the loss of the clinicians, because they can no longer work.

So, at the frontline, jobs are going on a daily basis. And the impact is significant. And I just, I mean, I worry about the potential of some of the multilateral agencies to be able to actually function at the level that they've been functioning.

So, I think the ramifications of this are going to unfold over the next few months quite significantly. But the challenge, and I would agree with Michael on this, is the challenge is really going to be that this is not going to be something that will be over in a short period of months. Many of these programs will never return again.

And that is something that is going to hit the people who are reliant, the communities who are reliant at the end of the day the hardest.

Thank you, Pin. And I'm going to ask now a question that is really difficult to ask, actually, because it is a bleak picture. I agree with you, Michael.

I don't think this is 90 days. I think they have killed the capability to actually govern this policy area. And I think it will stay with us for a long time.

Once a new administration comes in, they will have to rebuild. And I hear you, Pin and Meg, in terms of we're changing the way we are thinking about human life and the dignity of life. And people are going to die because of this if they don't get their ARVs.

And the clumsiness with which this has been rolled out is criminal. It's vandalism. It's not a change of policy.

It's a destructive project. So I get all of that. I still, in the back of my head, have this feeling that you said, Pin, we have never enough.

So the aid sector has grown and grown and grown over the years, right? We've actually, as an industry, been quite successful in attracting additional resources. And my question is, are we speed blind?

I mean, if we were getting 400 billion and 10 had been cut, would we be having the same conversation? How do we balance out? How do we understand ourselves in relation to the problem we are trying to solve?

Do we really understand our own business model? Or do we always just want what we have? And every loss is a tragedy and every addition is fantastic.

And if we get more money, we are happy.

Oh, I started on a glum note. And Meg and Pin have managed to put me under the desk now. You know, and just sort of reflecting a bit, you know, in many ways, I think, you know, as we're talking in the last Trump term, in some ways, the world was spared what the U.S. was experiencing every day, especially as Meg was talking about, about, you know, the way and the extent to which we've been living with a man who I wouldn't say is indifferent. I would say, you know, has clear sadistic qualities to him. I think he enjoys and feeds off the suffering. And that's, I think, the only way he knows that it exists.

And so I don't, you know, appealing to his, let's say, any higher values is certainly not going to work in this case. Previously, we could, but I don't think that's there. And Meg is right that, you know, this is not someone who believes that all humans are equal.

It's clear that some humans are superior and other people are not human as he sees it. And, you know, again, just to remind what everybody knows, we're seeing this every day now, and it's growing with respect to migrants in this country, where we're seeing, you know, more and more raids happening. And they don't get front page news, but they are happening.

They're happening in hospitals and in churches and in schools. People are getting rounded up. We're seeing, you know, at workplaces.

So this is part, you know, as I see it, this is part of a bigger picture. And it's all very consistent with what we know about Trump. So I see a continuity.

I don't see any hypocrisy here. He's treating, you know, humanitarianism the way he treats Americans, which is, I think, very sad, obviously. You know, it's humanitarianism operates on a triage model when it comes to how it works in the field.

And I think what, you know, many ways, what Lawrence Peter, you're asking is, yes, there's always more to do. But now we're being asked to think about priorities as you think about triage. I mean, it goes to, you know, I think Meg's earlier point, which is a very horrible moment in which you have to begin then ranking whose lives should be saved and who should be allowed to die.

I mean, that this is kind of always been the reality of humanitarianism, which is, of course, why there's always been a desire for more. But now we're in a sharp decline, which I think those questions, as horrible as they are, are going to have to be addressed either by commission or omission. And I think that's going to be incredibly hard.

If you follow my logic earlier about, you know, we're going to help those who show respect to the United States. I think the prediction is there going to be a lot more forgotten emergencies, to use that term, that, you know, we've always seen that there's been more money for those areas that have strategic and economic value to the U.S. and to other countries as well. And I think that will continue.

You saw that Egypt and Israel were on the exemption list. But, you know, the number of lives that are just going to be simply written off and the number of, you know, emergencies and MS, forgotten emergencies and MS gets to count is just going to increase. And it is heartbreaking.

It is. And, you know, one of the things I, you know, I think we should come back to, we have time, is, you know, who's going to make up for the lost funds? You know, I, you know, everybody's talking about, well, we now realize the difficulty of being overly dependent on one source.

Well, that presumes that there were other baskets that had eggs and there weren't a lot of other baskets. It wasn't as if everybody wanted to go to the U.S. It's because the U.S. was the one that had a larger open door. So where are we in that?

And I think my question is, are we thinking in the right way about having fewer eggs?

Yeah, I mean, it's a big, big question because I always struggle with this analysis of how much funding there is or isn't, because in a way it sort of speaks to what we were saying before about how exceptional we think we are. You know, there is money, there is money in the world that is all going towards militaries and billionaires, you know. And I think we've sort of reached this breaking point now in the sector and we were getting there, you know, before this U.S. thing happened. I mean, we were having a similar discussion last year, the year before, you know, this whole system that we have sort of built up can no longer sustain its caseload. And I don't know necessarily that there's an easy answer to that because I, you know, we find it difficult as humanitarian people to even engage properly with the development space, you know, let alone spaces that exist right outside humanitarian action. I think one thing on a slightly positive note, if there is one that I think is an emerging trend, is that the situation with the U.S. impacts everyone. And so people who have not historically engaged with the humanitarian system or have sort of accepted the fact that humanitarians come in and save lives without questioning the fact that they're doing that because, you know, because of decisions made by their own governments or the actions of companies or whatever. I think to some extent, Palestine started to do this too. I think humanitarianism is much more in the public consciousness now.

So you have a lot of people who are commenting on the intricacies of humanitarian aid in a way that I don't think they were previously because they're starting to see how all of these systems are connected. And that may seem minor, but the reason I think that's important is that so much reform blockage, I would say, has happened because of this assumption that global taxpayers are kind of stupid. And, you know, they don't understand the nuances of humanitarian assistance, and therefore we have to perpetuate this humanitarian hero narrative.

I think now there is a bit more of a space to look at, OK, the system is breaking. What are some better global models of cooperation? But they have to come, I think, from outside that system.

I think the system itself has reached a point where it is just completely unsustainable. And I mean, the other part of this, which I think we need to remember, is it's really important that we all now try and protect humanitarianism, because as we've just outlined, so many lives are depending on it, and so many lives are going to be threatened or ended by this current situation. But it's kind of like when something is under threat and suddenly we talk about it like it's perfect.

And it really worries me that we're doing that. It's sort of like when someone dies and then suddenly they're perfect, like we have an uncle and he dies and maybe he was a bit racist, but we suddenly talk about him like he was amazing. And I think there is a lot in the humanitarian system that now you would hope would be forced to change.

And we talk about the impact on local organisations that this 90 days is going to have. You know, local organisations can't just wait around for 90 days. And I really despair when I think about things like the complete package of benefits that one UN staff member gets sitting in Geneva per year would probably be the annual budget of several local NGOs that will no longer be able to sustain themselves.

And so I do think there has to be this moment of self-reflection on how do we sort of rally together and do some of this stuff better.

And really sorry about your uncle, by the way, Meg.

I'm Australian. I can't help it.

I thought she was talking about me. So, you know.

What do you say, Pin? Do we need a eulogy for the humanitarian system where we recognise? Do we need a different narrative?

I think is what I'm asking for who we are.

Well, I don't necessarily think it's a different narrative about who we are, but I think the funding models and modalities we've been reliant upon for the last 60 years are not fit for purpose and haven't been fit for purpose for a long time. And we've been talking about this. I was looking at earlier today, I was looking at this endless list of quotes setting out actually how the time of ODA has gone and how humanitarian system is no longer working.

We've been talking about this. I know from where I sit 15, maybe 20 years now. And we've been trying to make incremental changes, incremental changes while existing on the system and trying to make incremental changes, which aren't giving us a different result.

And actually, in some ways, and I'm going to try to be optimistic here, otherwise I think we're going to end up in a really sort of... So I don't think I'll sleep tonight because I'm going to be so sort of upset by the end of this discussion. But I do think with every crisis, there comes an opportunity.

And what's happened here is Trump's just pulled the rug from underneath all of our feet. And there's nothing better to force you to do something differently when you have no other choice. And I think this is an opportunity.

Sure, we're not going to have other countries stepping up and filling the shortfall, the existing donors filling the shortfall that the US is leaving. But it does beg the question of other countries that aren't contributing at all into a global humanitarian system and taking responsibility of global challenges that affect all of us. This shouldn't just be a global north agenda.

This should be a much wider global agenda. And is this an opportunity for us to see more voices, southern voices appearing who are taking responsibility and also saying, we are going to do this differently. We're not going to ride the coattails of the way ODA has done.

We're going to remake the system in a way that works for the future. And it works for us. And for me, I see that as a real opportunity.

I think there's a real opportunity for the countries that are most affected by some of these crises actually bringing their voices to the table. And actually laying the groundwork for what we build for the future. And that's really important.

And I don't think we should be in any way discrediting what we have achieved so far. We have achieved a huge amount with ODA and with money that has been very highly stretched and used in many ways. But we also need to be looking at what we need for the future.

Much more localised way of operating. I totally agree with Meg. We don't need big UN agencies necessarily delivering at the front line.

We need to be thinking about how we operate and coordinate at the national level differently. Also, we've got this challenge with climate change coming in and also taking out from the development pot which is being split between humanitarian, climate and development. Is there an opportunity now for us to think about crisis financing?

Do we develop a new mechanism that's going to be focused on actually dealing with crises and multiple types of crisis and looking at crisis financing? And what's the role of security in that? There's a lot of money for defence but contribution of defence into crisis financing might be a new way to look at things.

I would say let's open this box completely and think about it in a way that we wouldn't normally have come about it. This gives us an opportunity to say, if Trump can do this, we can do this differently too instead of trying to hold on to everything that we've got because at the end of the day, we need some big new solutions here.

One group that was left out of that, which I'm really watching closely over the next few months is the role of the rich person in the world. We've spoken a lot about billionaires on this show. I think there will be a lot of philanthropy people who are watching what is happening in the US and hating it and will want to do things that will counter that narrative and that action.

And we've seen, I think it was when Mackenzie Scott just suddenly decided she was going to give this huge injection of cash and she gave so much of it very directly to local organisations. A few more of those situations could have a really massive impact. And it's not a space that I know particularly a lot about, but I find it so interesting just to see the power of what happens when people who are not necessarily even billionaires, but multi-millionaires decide to pay some tax with the money that they have and what they decide to do with it.

That could have huge implications over the next years and something that I'm watching, I think, with a lot of interest.

You know, I was gratified to see Mike Bloomberg once again step up and, you know, offer his billions for the WHO to help it tie it over. And that's certainly an important development. I, you know, I want to go back though and think about, as Pin was raising, the possibility of change, because, yes, it could be that moment where we see that, you know, you can't go back to normal or whatever we thought was normal, that we need something quite different now.

I do wonder though, you know, I would say people don't always act their most noblest during crises. You know, there are a lot of very large aid agencies that are going to be looking to save themselves in the same way that they looked to feed themselves before. I think that, but I also hope that maybe this helps us shift a bit the discourse on localization.

I don't know who set that 25% number, you know, at the World Humanitarian Summit that, you know, we would find 25% of all, you know, Western donor unit donations going directly to local agencies. But I always thought that that did a real disservice that, in fact, if you thought localization was going to be enhanced by being more directly dependent on the US, that probably was not going to be the result. But rather, maybe it will, maybe this will become the moment in which localization really happens, where, in fact, you see, you know, what old radical Marxists used to say back in the 60s when it came to decolonization, a real delinking.

And that sort of forced upon the global South, which then creates new opportunities, new ingenuities, new creativities. Again, part of that depends on the role of their states and where they are and whether they're willing to actually capitalize as well on these at a moment of shrinking space. So I think they're just, there are opportunities and I think we should watch them and help them as we can.

And I do think this could be a real inflection point in many ways. And so, you know, if you, to be really brave about it, I would just simply say some things could get better and some things could get worse, which is the best a political scientist can do, which is just basically try to balance the yin and the yang.

The yin and the yang. Thank you, Michael. I've been waiting for that the whole conversation.

Great that we got it in there. So it seems to me that there are two things at play here, right? On one side, we obviously need a new funding model.

We need new money. We don't have that, but we have some money that disappeared and that has created a disruption of the system. I think the other challenge that I see is that change has been held back by, let's call them, the humanitarian club, maybe as you do, Michael, or big aid or whatever we want to call them, by the established aid system that has perpetuated a narrative and a way of thinking about things, which is stifling and which always tends to put these institutions at the center of the equation, right?

And so I think my question here is, to what extent do you think that the current, the incumbents or the established system will be disrupted by what has just happened? Are we going to lose some club members, Michael? Meg, is Ground Truth Solutions, are you ok?

. What kind of evolution will we see in the humanitarian ecosystem? Who wants to have a go at that one?

Well, I think the first thing that can be said is that, in terms of the club and the people around the table, the biggest spender has conveniently figured out a time to go to the bathroom when the check comes. And so is no longer going to be picking up the tab in the same way. How's that for a little great analogy?

Its poetic, Michael, poetic.

Okay. And we've already seen a bit of decentralization taking place. So I wouldn't necessarily...

So in fact, this could accelerate it as I was suggesting earlier. And it could mean that a lot of the large club members don't have the same leverage they once did. And so there, again, may be new bargaining leverage that's available that wasn't available before.

I mean, those are things I would look for. Will it necessarily... I mean, I guess in terms of the club metaphor, is that mean we're going to see more chairs around the table?

Or are we going to see, which is sort of more in the way that I think about it, are we going to see more decentralization where there's a greater decoupling between the North and the South on a lot of critical issues? And what will that look like? Again, I don't want to be unnecessarily Panglossian about the possibilities.

But I think that there are things that could happen that lead to a kind of change that many of us have hoped for for quite some time.

Michael Panglossian, what does that mean?

Hopeful.

Hopeful, okay, cool, thank you.

Yeah, I mean, this is why I come to these conversations to hear words like Panglossian from friends like Michael.

And probably not use them correctly, but that's another thing.

I mean, you asked about the impact on Ground Truth Solutions. And I mean, we've definitely taken a hit. I don't know the extent of that just yet.

And I have to be careful here because I have been horrified, I would say is the word by the behavior of some of the big NGOs this week. And the extent to which the conversation is focusing on their sort of self ascribed right to exist versus the impact of their programs. And maybe it's just because that is sort of implied.

But I feel that I agree with what both Pin and Michael said about this opportunity of this crisis to force change. And I really hope it does on the localization front. I hope that it just becomes a necessity that that is what people have to do.

And money has to be much more direct. And then we see the implications of that. And I'm based on the evidence that we have from GTS.

I'm sure that we will see a lot of positive evidence of what that means. I fear though, that that is going to be, I think a lot of these kind of mega tanker organizations are gonna be clinging to their size. And what I worry about is linked to what I said before about, you know, we're a small organization.

So I know this very well. We are gonna find it very hard to survive with uncertainty for 90 days. A huge organization is going to do a much better job of that just in terms of their sort of existence in the world.

And so I really, really hope that some of those reforms are kind of forced quickly because the risk is there's been so much work around the world for small organizations to really take up this leadership role, operate in places where big organizations don't go. I mean, if you look at Sudan at the moment that is a very clearly documented case of without community-led aid, there would not be aid. And I'm just, I'm so worried about the implications for some of these tiny organizations who are gonna have to pivot because they just can't wait for that long.

So I'm hopeful, but also worried.

Lars Peter, I would echo those comments. I think the ecosystem of actors will not remain the same as it was at the end of last year. But those who survive and those who thrive are they gonna be the right ones?

Or are they going to be the right ones are gonna be the casualties of this, right? That I don't think any of us can say with any certainty. I think some of the most innovative organizations are also always the ones who are the most vulnerable organizations.

There's never enough funding for innovation because it's risky, it's high risk, it's challenging. It's going to change the status quo. And so it always takes people who are willing to see the future in a different way rather than the stable funders to fund them.

So they're always gonna be at risk. And I think in this scenario, that's the funding that will get cut first. And what does survive even in the big organizations is gonna be quite interesting.

If we end up losing the programs, the work that's actually done on the ground, but the core hubs of headquarters survive, is that the right part of the organization that should be surviving? And what is the value in that? So there's so many questions right at this moment that I know organizations are grappling with.

I think we're all trying to grapple with here. And I can't say for certain whether I'm hopeful or not, because at the end of the day, I think the risk is so high for the organizations that really need to come through. And that's why I just wanna go back to a point Meg was raising about philanthropy, the rich individuals who are starting to step in and say, look, we can try to fill some holes, but also fill the right holes where there is innovation to keep that alive.

Because I think actually that's where sort of the super rich who've made money from being innovative themselves can often be the ones willing to fund that element. While generally bilateral donors, government donors tend to be much more risk averse. And so where we do see the growth of millionaires, I pick India as an example where my family are from.

You see every day so many millionaires being born. How do they step in and actually say, we're gonna support the local ecosystem in our country? Kenya is a really good example.

The wealth, every time I go back to Kenya, the wealth that's been created is huge. Is this an opportunity for those who are creating national level wealth to actually play a role in supporting the ecosystem of actors that are there locally as well? And philanthropists like Mackenzie Scott, who has been leading the way to do philanthropy differently.

Are there others? Are there others who are going to be bold in that way as well? And so there's a lot of space now, I think, for brave individuals to step in and to lay the groundwork.

But I just still fear the actions that will be taken. Are they going to end up safeguarding the core of a system that will try to ride out the wave? Because it's big enough.

It's got the reserves. It's got the ability to just hunker down and ride these four years out while the smaller innovative organizations, unfortunately, float away.

One positive note on that. So I was at a regional meeting in Bangkok two months ago among NGOs. And the thing that really impressed me, and I've been attending that meeting for the last several years, was the extent to which many of these networks and platforms that really had begun to emerge after the World Humanitarian Summit are beginning to institutionalize and cohere and networks are being formed.

And so the possibility that these organizations begin to act collectively and begin to recognize their shared interests, their shared identity, begin to exchange information, begin to take charge of, rather than wait for others to offer things, which I think has been an unfortunate tendency in the system so far. I see that as being not just an opportunity, but I think a real option. And I imagine that there's going to be a lot of activity at that level, which I think is quite healthy.

Because there you have, I think, the opportunity for, as I've seen a Bangladeshi and Thai NGOs and Malaysian NGOs with Filipino NGOs coming together to talk, to figure out their problems and how to move together in a solidaristic way, I think provides, for me, some hope.

So what I hear is, I think, and it's, the difficulty of this conversation is that we all know that this is going to put a lot of people in a terrible situation across the world, right? And it's difficult to actually be detached from that and to leave that terrible reality behind. But I think, on top of that, this is also a moment where the existing system is being disrupted by suddenly 25% of the funding.

Or four out of $10 for aid overall, I think humanitarian, it's 25%, if I'm not wrong. That creates a vacuum somehow. And it's a moment for change, that disruption.

And we are hoping that something positive also will come out of that. It's been a gloomy conversation, as it should be, I think. But let's try to imagine five years from now, things have actually significantly changed for the positive.

In your mind, I'm sure you have in your minds the picture of a much more vibrant, fit-for-purpose humanitarian sector. When you think about that utopia five years from now, what has driven that? What is the key driver for positive change that we should be looking for and striving to amplify?

Easy question, as always. Meg?

How did I know you were going to make me answer that first? I mean, it's a huge question, some very off-the-cuff thinking on it. I mean, we've already talked about localisation.

I think that is a huge one. If we see models that are more about local action and global solidarity, there is so much power in that, as we're seeing in Sudan. I think there's a lot that we could learn from Sudan that could be scaled.

We had a really...

What will make it succeed?

I mean, money makes things succeed, right? So if there are enough diverse funding sources that come in and say, okay, we can't keep propping up a very inefficient, globally-driven system, are there more ways of direct, more efficient support to local organisations? I don't know exactly what that looks like, but we've seen some models, like these diaspora models, the Mackenzie Scott model.

I think there's a lot of potential there. And I do think, or at least I hope, that this experience has been so shocking that we're seeing the worst of humanity, but we will also see the good of humanity kind of step up and say, okay, how can I help? And I think that may force some change because those people will be different.

And maybe they'll come from slightly outside the system and they haven't yet been swept into the bureaucracies and the systems, and they're just looking at, you know, what is the best way that I can be useful here? But another thing that I wanted to point to, we were having a discussion with some civil society actors in Lebanon and Palestine recently, and the really critical message from them, or the plea from them was, we are gonna have crisis after crisis after crisis, so we actually don't, we don't want response. We wanna have stronger institutions, and we want our institutions to be able to withstand this reality where we are going to continually face these shocks.

And I think we talk a lot about resilience, and we talk a lot about nexus, and a lot of things where I think no one fully understands what they mean, but we understand that if they worked, they'd be quite good. And hopefully seeing some more investment in some of those things that say, we sort of respect society's rights to look after themselves and not be aid dependent, and can we somehow more smartly invest in those? Complicated, because obviously that hasn't worked very well to date, but maybe that is a change that will be forced by this kind of crisis in the aid world.

Thanks, Meg. Pin?

And I would love for that to become the future. And let me explain what it is. It's about, first of all, putting public finance at the centre of providing some of the basic services at the national, regional, and global level.

And actually having a tier system of understanding what is a global public good that needs to be globally funded? What does that look like at the regional level? What does that look like at the national level?

And who's responsible? But more fundamentally, it's based on an idea of actually building a financing architecture that's based on three key principles. It's about that everybody contributes.

Even if I'm putting a pound in or a dollar in, I am contributing and everybody has and should contribute towards that public part. But as a result, it means that everybody benefits. And also decision-making doesn't sit in the hands of the few.

Decision-making sits much more inclusively. So we're talking about solidarity. We're talking about universality.

And creating a financing system which is based on those principles that starts to bring a much more focus on public investment being about creating a universal framework that allows us to fund the key priorities at a global, regional, and local level. And where it's at local level, that's very much the government's responsibility and then regional responsibility and then building on that, the global. And I think that does challenge the current humanitarian system.

Because at the moment, the humanitarian system has spread so significantly, but also we expect it to fund absolutely everything. And I think prioritization is gonna be fundamental in the next few years. Prioritization, looking at where do we make efficiency gains, effectiveness gains, but also funding ideas like Nexus.

I think the time has come to really look at, well, how do we mobilize this really great idea that we don't quite know how to make it work, to really make it work and actually try that out. And this is where these ideas start to come together. And I think we can see in the future, systems that aren't based on the rich few countries making decisions on behalf of the rest of us.

And that greater voice, greater solidarity and universality approach. Because at the end of the day, systems aren't gonna stay the same and nor should they stay the same. But the problems that at one point we thought was, oh, this was a Southern problem, will all of a sudden become a Northern problem as well.

And when we start to see things as our problems, I think that solidarity will win through. But it will also challenge the structures that we've become reliant upon so far.

Great. Michael, what does your utopia look like?

It's a combination of Meg and Pins. I don't think I need to, I always listen to the, I always get my best ideas from the smartest people. So, what they have to say sounds pretty good.

I guess all I would add in some ways is, there's a sense in which bigger is not better. I'm not one of these small is beautiful kind of people. But I think we often refer to the humanitarian sector as an industry, as an oligopoly, as overly centralized and concentrated.

And these are not compliments. These are ways of describing what has become a sector that is overgrown at the top. And as a consequence, smothers what's underneath.

I think, to the extent that this becomes a time where you begin to see a lot of the large aid agencies by necessity having to cut back. And I think Pin's question about what are they going to cut back on is really important. But that also then provides a little bit of, provides a way of potentially oxygenating what's underneath.

If in fact, with this opportunity, you see a lot of global Southern agencies just becoming, in some ways, emulating what the big international aid agencies look like, I think that would be a problem. My hope is that this becomes a moment where everybody has an opportunity to think about what they do well, what they need to do better. How, in fact, to be more inclusive, how to act in a more network way.

I think those would all be, as I see it, very positive steps. I think we've gotten to the point where the kind of hierarchies that we've seen in the system are necessarily exhausted, or at least they've exhausted the possibility of change. And so, this again, not because anybody wanted it or thinks it's going to be better in the short term, but rather that it provides people this by necessity have to start being creative and inventive.

And perhaps that provides the kind of institutions, new kinds of institutions that both Meg and Penn talked about. I mean, I would look there for not simply new shoots, but the possibility that you begin to have a real growth. And maybe there are some regions of the world that actually like Central America and South America used to be very reliant on international aid.

And there's still the Venezuela's and the Columbia's still. But it's really impressive the extent to which when we talk about the humanitarian sector and the agencies, there aren't as many that come to the fore as what exists in this hemisphere. And because the states have been a lot more effective than they were before.

They've routinized their response to hurricanes and so on. And maybe what we'll see is that happening more widely than it was, not completely, but I do hope that there is in that sense regional gains so that there is not the same kind of reliance on the internationals.

I think that's an excellent place to leave this conversation. I want to say a big thank you to you, Meg and Pin and Michael for coming on to humanitarian and for managing to somehow square the circle of at the same time, really empathizing with what is happening in the world right now and the really awful changes that we are seeing and the suffering that we are seeing and will see. But at the same time, also trying to look forward and seeing the potential that is in this crisis, in this disruption we're experiencing and trying to imagine a more positive future.

Thank you for having us. Thank you for the invitation.

Thank you so much. Thank you.