Press conference on the launch of the 2023 Global Humanitarian Overview by Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Martin Griffiths, 1 December 2022

[Unofficial transcript]

Geneva, 1 December 2022

We are launching, today, the plan for next year. This document gives the details of that, the Global Humanitarian Overview. As you know, we do this every year, about this time. And today, this is being launched, and I will summarize, I think, the sort of topline figures and maybe talk about some of the issues involved in where we are going, where we are looking at, going ahead.

First of all, we are talking about humanitarian assistance to [230] million people in [69] countries in 2023. This figure is arrived at by detailed planning at country level and producing, indeed for 2023, 38 so-called response plans, which are plans for humanitarian assistance and programming detailed in sectors for next year, and it is produced during the course of 2022 by humanitarian agencies in the field. And it has now become something that, you know, it happens, sadly, every year. So, 339 million people [will be in need this year], a 25 per cent increase of the total from 2022, 65 million people more next year than this year. And that increase is a steady increase in the last few years. Since 2019, if you look back at the trends, it has been going up steadily by about that amount, it has spiked with COVID, it went up. Unfortunately, it didn’t come down after COVID, but the numbers have been steadily increasing.

So, the next year is going to be the biggest humanitarian programme in the world. And I should just stress that what we’re launching [today] is the international response plan coordinated by the United Nations. There are separate programs from the Red Cross, for example, we see here in Geneva, [Médecins Sans Frontières], and others who fundraise and plan for their own projects so that the total of humanitarian assistance for the world will be more than what we’re planning to spend, hoping to spend, which for 2023 is US$51.5 billion – another all-time record, of course.

The 339 million people is equivalent to the third most populous country in the world: China, India, humanitarian. So, it is a phenomenal number, and it is a depressing number.

How did we get to this point? Well, just looking at this year, 2022 was a year, I suppose, of extreme events. I had thought, going into 2022, that we would be devoting more most of our time in humanitarian discussions on climate, that the effect of climate and the immediate impact on the frontline communities where our agencies work would be our primary focus.

And, of course, this was not our primary focus, because, as of February, there was the war in Ukraine, and it took the world’s attention and our attention on to those other matters. It’s interesting to note that we have provided assistance for 13.6 million people in Ukraine, and, of course, as you know, going into the winter, it is not getting any easier or less. And Ukraine’s proposed budget, our proposed budget for Ukraine next year, I think is the [one] highest of the list. It’s [$5.7] billion for Ukraine and the region.

So, Ukraine came along, but climate was not long behind, of course, as you know, and I went to Somalia, as did all other humanitarian representatives. We’ve all been through Somalia, we’ve been through northern Kenya, we’ve been through Ethiopia, the Horn of Africa, which is perhaps the most compelling story of the need for climate justice.

So, it roared back at us in the second half of 2022. And you will remember the words of my Secretary-General, António Guterres, who described the situation in Pakistan, the floods, which started in the middle of August there, as a “monsoon on steroids.” And, again, many of us went there and had the privilege of seeing the horrors of what was going on there. And, of course, Pakistan, supported by development agencies, the World Bank is also producing its own reconstruction costs and hoping to get a lot of climate money for it, and these are in the tens of billions.

So, we’ve had conflict in a whole new way, we’ve always had it, we’ve got climate. And there’s no doubt that 2023 is going to perpetuate these trends on steroids. And climate, I think, in particular, I want to say one or two words about, that is going to be, I think, a dominant theme for humanitarian programming, humanitarian funding, humanitarian advocacy. 222 million people, more figures for you, will face that acute food insecurity in 53 countries by the end of this year. When you look at the issue of famine, and there is a very complex, detailed technical process, assessing whether famine conditions exist or not, as you probably know, five countries, already, are experiencing what we call famine-like conditions in which we can confidently and unhappily say that people are dying as a result. It tends to be children as a result of displacement, food insecurity, lack of food, starvation; 45 million people in 37 countries now risk starvation.

Public health, next, the next topic, post-COVID, is also under pressure. I had the privilege of meeting yesterday with the leadership of MSF who were telling me about the spike in cholera cases. Cholera is now in 30 places around the world. Ebola, as you know, is coming back, particularly in Uganda and Central Africa. And we’ve had Mpox, which is a new term for monkeypox. So public health is never a constant friend in these circumstances.

I will come back to climate money in a minute.

I would like to say something about gender. We calculate that it would take four generations – over 130 years – it is a hell of a projection, frankly, to achieve gender parity. And the reason why that’s particularly relevant to us is that, as you know, a disproportionate number of women and girls live in extreme poverty. And a disproportionate number of women and girls suffer, first, the perils of displacement, the perils of gender-based violence, the perils of having to look after children, with their partners who are not there, and the perils in the Horn of Africa, where a way of life, pastoralism, is under existential threat.

Displaced, I keep referring to that, displaced people now, highest ever again, as with all these figures – 103 million people displaced going into next year.

What needs to happen? Number one, humanitarian organizations, including those who are not part of this plan, like the Red Cross and others – we work very, very closely together. This week, indeed, in Geneva, a couple of days ago, we had a meeting of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee, I chair that, of the heads of humanitarian agencies from around the world, talking about these issues, talking about how we want to make sure that, in going into 2023, we prioritize genuine relations with affected people, with the communities that we serve, by which I mean a relationship which allows those people to tell us what they need and to give us instructions, how to spend the money that is dedicated to them. So, the agencies and the humanitarian community is unusually, because of reforms over the last 15 years, it is unusually operationally well placed to work together. And that’s great – but the needs are outstripping the capacity of this group of people.

Secondly, climate, finally – there is no doubt in many of our frontline observations, and, as I say, I’ve been to the places, that you all know about and others have, too, where there’s no climate money going to the frontline in Somalia. Resilience, which is that word, as you know, used for looking at alternative livelihoods, better use of water, providing conditions so people don’t have to leave home and trek a week with their children to the nearest clinic or camp or hospital. Resilience funding, which is precisely one of the principal, supposed to be beneficiaries of adaptation, much discussed in the COP, and presumably loss and damage, also much discussed in the COP – the money just isn’t getting through to those people in the front line. And we’ve all said it. And, in 2023, the humanitarian community, I think, needs to be a lot more organized, and, indeed vocal about how to be more transparent about climate promises, be more quick about decisions to disperse and getting the money that’s promised to the people for whom it’s promised. Because, so far as we can see, that’s not happening yet. And I want to stress that this is not an attempt by the humanitarian community to grab climate funding for our own operations. It’s principally saying, we need climate funding to help people not need our operations. That’s what resilience is about.

That leads me on to the second linked point, and these are all issues in trying to address the gap between needs and money. We’re often told by donors that humanitarian funding will be protected – good news for us, thank you very much – but not development funding. Development funding is much more vulnerable, as you know, to cuts in budgets or to political considerations. That’s not good news for the humanitarian community. Development funding and structural support can do things better than us, like providing basic services; Afghanistan is a classic example of that. There are understandable political considerations in many, many countries who are very generous about not allowing such funding, but the result in many of those places, is that the burden is then passed to humanitarian funding. That’s one of the reasons why our budgets go up. And we become involved in more issues and more kinds of work than was originally imagined. I had the privilege a lot earlier this year, towards the end of last year and into this year of working with Peter Maurer, the President of [International Committee of the Red Cross], in terms of the liquidity and economic issues in Afghanistan, a rare moment for the head of ICRC and somebody in my position. So, we are advocates for development funding, we are advocates for engagement in places of difficult politics, for those funds to be made available, just as we are for climate, to reach the people in places that we are aware of their need.

And then, of course, this is perhaps a bit more of a softer point, but, as you know, the war in Ukraine, which has provided such serious problems of supply chain distributions, a threat to food security increases in prices. We have, therefore, as a result of advocacy and then mediation, the Black Sea Grain Initiative recently renewed for another four months and efforts to improve and reduce impediments to Russian exports.

The humanitarian community, because of the gap between needs and funding, also needs to be involved in these kinds of efforts. It was not by chance that it was us in our community, which was asked to mediate the Black Sea Grain Initiative. We have been, in final point, [47] per cent funded in 2022. Typically, in years gone by, before the recent two or three years, as I understand it, we would have 60 to 65 per cent funded globally. But, of course, there’s huge imbalances between different places. So [47] per cent funded in 2022. Now the needs have gone up. As we went into 2022, we had a $41 billion bill in the Global Humanitarian Overview last year. It went up to near $50 billion. But we would expect that it was going to be very difficult to get a lot more than that. Despite that, we will be working on climate, we will be working on development, we will be working on ways to mitigate the effect of conflict and climate as well. But this is a trend, which is, of course, the most concerning and is repeated here today, as it was a year ago.

I would stress, however, that global ODA, you know, Overseas Development Aid, is not reducing significantly, despite what you might think, that overall, it’s keeping at about, I think it’s about $180 billion a year.

It’s the needs that are going up. It’s the support, the generosity of a few Member States – and there should be more – is being sustained. The gap is because of the needs, not because of the funding. And the needs are going up because we’ve been smitten by the war in Ukraine, by COVID, by climate. And I fear that 2023 is going to be an acceleration of all those trends.

And that’s why we say in this report, and generally, that we hope 2023 will be a year of solidarity, just as 2022 has been a year of suffering.

Thank you very much.

So, you come again in front of us with a record GHO for next year, and, as you mentioned, you just get that grain deal renewed. So, do you have already a plan B in four months in case that agreement won’t be renewed, and will probably expand? Largely, what are the needs? Thank you.

Under-Secretary-General: I don’t have a plan B, it’s going to be renewed. I feel strongly about that, as you can imagine. I think what was striking and was very important for us in negotiating the renewal was the extraordinary level of international comment around the world, in the Global South in particular, saying we need this Black Sea operation, we cannot have it not renewed – that’s not right.

And I think it’s partly because the Black Sea operation is so tangible, it’s so visible, we can see it and we could see it if it didn’t work, and we saw just before it some slight difficulties of implementation. So, I strongly believe that the world will expect it to be renewed and, indeed as you say, possibly expanded to into include maybe more ports or different elements. We want to see more fertilizer, in particular, exported both, directly from Russia, including through Europe as you know. We’re also trying to get an ammonia pipeline into existence through Ukraine from Russia and out across the Black Sea. As the World Food Program and FAO, our sort of partners in food security, tell us, it’s fertilizer that’s the key really to stopping next year its problem being lack of availability as well as high price. So, we have got to do this and I am confident that we will have a negotiation after four months, but I’m hoping that we will expand rather than reduce.

I was wondering if you could say something about the direct impact the Ukraine war has had on the needs, on the numbers, and also, this record numbers again, and you’re talking about acceleration going forward. The needs that, at the end of 2022, are basically almost the same as the ones you’re asking for for next year, so I’m guessing that we’re going to see an acceleration, we’re going to see more needs next year. I mean, how where does this end, basically? Thank you.

Under-Secretary-General: Yeah, I think that’s the big elephant, isn’t it? That’s the big question: Where does this end? Because the vectors are all going in a certain direction.

First of all, on Ukraine. Again, if you look at the statistics, I’ve be looking at it recently, obviously, because of this, Ukraine, of course, has been very well funded, in terms of humanitarian support, and it has huge needs, so we’re pleased about that.

But, generally speaking, overall, Ukraine funding has not had a major increase on diminution of funding for elsewhere on the whole. I don’t know if that’s going to be sustained. That is just looking at sort of the pure money for Ukraine as opposed to money for other crises. It, of course, upsets a lot of us. When we go to places where the 16 ,17, 20 per cent funding, as opposed to 80 or 90 per cent funding, which, you know, it’s not for humanitarians to get into the business of saying, you’re lucky, you’re not.

Member States often ask us in the context of the question that you’re posing about – where is this going? And they asked it in the Member State briefing that I had here the other day: You need to prioritize more, you should tell us what is important. And I followed the line of my predecessor, Mark Lowcock, who said it is not for us to prioritize – it is for us to tell you what we think is needed, based on our firsthand observation, what we think we can deliver based on the knowledge of the different agencies. And then there is a discussion about prioritizing, which, of course, donors often have strong views about – Ukraine is a good example. Holding this line is difficult because, of course, we also argue very strongly, good donors, or rather good donorship, includes unearmarked funding, as you know, and there is increasing evidence of some very good donors who do exactly that. That gives us back, actually, the choice of prioritization. So, it’s not a pure, you know, you decide and we’ll deliver – we have to get into this triage and so we have to look at, in terms of your big question – I’ll come back to the early bit of it in a minute – we have to look at new partners, and I have identified development, which includes the World Bank and international financial institutions, but also climate.

I was surprised by the comparative absence of humanitarian advocacy in the COP. There was a lot of humanitarian presence, but in terms of concerted advocacy, like we do on any other aspects of our work, we’re a little bit late to that process. And we discussed it earlier this week in that meeting I mentioned, and we will not be late in the future. So, we need to bring to the climate discussion, the firsthand experiences of those who are primarily affected and ideas about how to do quick and safe delivery of that assistance for resilience, principally, but also, I guess, for life saving. So, we need to look at new partners, we need to look at spending money better. None of this is new, actually.

There is something which you probably know about called anticipatory action, something very much put at trial through German leadership, which is all about anticipating where a natural disaster is going to happen. You know, next spring, will there be floods in Bangladesh? Yes, there will be. Let us preposition cash and resources so that people don’t have to leave their homes. It depends, as indeed Mr. Guterres said in the COP, on a global, which is one of his big initiatives, a global early warning system. But anticipatory action, which we want to roll out in much bigger action next year, does take at least one thing from climate, that it’s some parts of climate change are comparatively predictable, some parts, not at all – look at Pakistan. So, we can spend that money better. I believe strongly, and there are figures on that which I’m happy to give you later, which gives you some interesting data on why that money is better spent early.

The other aspect, I believe very passionately and I think we all do in my community, which is that if we do have a proper, sustained, honest conversation over time, with the leaders of communities and representative of these communities of those we serve, they know how to spend money wisely, because people in their condition are always needing to spend the little they have wisely. They can help us make money go further – I am absolutely sure of that. And you see that from evidence in the development community, which has sustained relations with local communities, but better than we do. So, there are ways to make money more useful. One of the big changes in 2022 for humanitarian delivery has been the use of cash. Remember, this came through a reform process, in something called the Grand Bargain. Jan Egeland, who is the eminent person, was the leader, many Member States, many agencies. And I’m struck by how it’s been taken up and run with by humanitarian agencies in the course of the year, not first in 2022, but huge increase was Ukraine: A great example of how you spent cash, like cash has a number of advantages. Cash can be transferred by Internet, not by trucks going through front lines. Cash gives agency back to people that you are there to serve. Cash is a way to use money more wisely and more responsibly. And we need to expand that. And so far, we haven’t detected any mass problems with this expenditure of cash. It’s hugely audited and evaluated and monitored with all the usual things that the humanitarian operations do there. But, when I was in Somalia, WFP told me that 98 per cent of their food programme in Somalia was cash, which is kind of counterintuitive, isn’t it? And it’s, of course, because the Somali people, with decades of difficulties, of problems, are extraordinary entrepreneurs when it comes to market distribution. And you find markets in the most unlikely places. So, cash, even in Somalia, and then Ukraine at the other end, can help us.

The effect of Ukraine on the larger thing, I’ve dealt with part of it. There are, however, facts which I don’t have, of the spike on prices, energy prices, which affect transport, food prices, which affect food. Even the Black Sea initiative and the Russian exports have reduced prices of food and fertilizer. I think, for example, on the day of renewal, the price of grain went down in the Chicago futures market. But I don’t have the percentage increase, which we’ll get to you the percentage increase in the cost of operations as a result of the supply chain problems. I will get it.

I think that you said that Ukraine was the biggest plan that you have. Maybe I misunderstand, but when I look at the numbers, it seems that it’s Syria. So, should I look at the humanitarian response plan and add the regional response plan to have the top countries, top 10 countries, that need the most assistance? That was about the numbers, and the other question is, you said that you have 230 million people targeted and 339 million that are in need so there’s a gap of about 100 million people. Who is left aside?

Jens Laerke, Deputy Spokesperson: Just on the numbers, do go with the tables you have where you can see the individual countries. We look at crises either within the framework as a Humanitarian Response Plan, which is for response inside that country, or as a Refugee Response Plan, which is essentially not for aid inside the country, but for the neighboring countries where that crisis spills into. So, if you look at, for example, Syria as a crisis, of course it has an impact inside Syria, which is dealt with by the Humanitarian Response Plan, and in the region, which is dealt by with the Regional Response and Resilience Plan. The same is the case with Venezuela. So it’s a bit up to you – how do you want to rank them by country or by crisis?

Under-Secretary-General: On the difference between those in need and those we target, we were talking about this before coming as well, and the difference largely is that there are other sources of humanitarian assistance, which are not part of our programme of work. I refer to the Red Cross operations which are huge. MSF is huge. Government bilateral assistance – often, I mean, a big issue in Pakistan floods was gifts in kind coming out of the Gulf, for example. We see more and more of that happening around the world, and not to be ignored at all and, indeed, to be attended to. We need to pay attention and tabulate the money coming from host Governments. Again, in the Pakistan floods, it was the cash distribution made by the Government of Pakistan through the Benazir Bhutto Fund, which was the first source and a lot of money came through that and was pushed out by Internet to individuals who have had to leave home, which is the first source of relief, if you like. So, you’ve got all these other things, these other sources of money.

We have calculated the numbers of those people we think we need to reach with what we have to offer and that we can reach. I would make one final point and it was very visible to me and it’s a global issue, but it’s a common issue too. I saw it most particularly in Tigray last year. Internally displaced people in Tigray – and there are a lot of them and there still are – the first source of support as they moved in Tigray – and remember those early months of last year as they moved east basically in Tigray – were the host communities, their fellow Tigrayans. And until they ran out, those host communities, they were the first help, and they helped to reach some of these people. So, we don’t track all that source of support, but that’s the difference in the amount. So, the balance between the two is simply who’s helping them, not that they are not being supported.

I have a question about Yemen. I didn’t see anything in your introduction about Yemen, and, you know, better than anyone the situation there. I want to know about the situation, actually, and your expectation for 2023 in Yemen. And I have a second question: The Special Rapporteur on the negative effects of unilateral sanctions said in her reports, she puts sanctions as one of the causes of economic crisis in certain countries, like Syria, like Venezuela, Iran and others. And I want to have your opinion about that. Thank you.

Under-Secretary-General: Yemen first. I see it’s got a price tag of just over $4 billion for next year. So, Yemen is always right up there in terms of a huge operation, and I think it is because it includes more people as a percentage of the total population than elsewhere in the world. I would say a couple of things about Yemen. I mean, it’s very much on our agenda. Number one, the truce needs to be renewed. That is essential for the welfare of the people of Yemen and some sense for their future. It’s also essential for humanitarian and other forms of assistance. Number two, if I understand it right, the [United Arab] Emirates has very recently, in recent days, made a very substantial contribution to fiscal and economic stability in Yemen, and that’s most welcome. Number three, the [Humanitarian and Resident Coordinator in Yemen, David Gressly, has always, since he began his work there a few years ago, prioritized, not prioritized, but included economic stability and economic support as an essential part of response to needs in Yemen. And I think he’s right.

And so we are also keen to see, progressively, the kind of structural funding that I referred to, in my introduction, as needed in places like Yemen. Yemen, as you know, has at least one significant asset. And that is that its payroll has survived the war so that you can still direct money straight into the bank accounts of government officials, for example. If you make a decision to do that, which is an extraordinarily efficient way of using scarce resources. I think UNICEF and other organizations have also worked in similar ways in terms of direct support using World Bank money, which is again, I think, a creative way of getting World Bank money into places where the World Bank presence is not possible. So that’s on Yemen.

On sanctions, all I would say is that I’m very pleased to see the proposal being put forward by the United States for humanitarian carve-outs exemptions for all sanctions, which is in front of the Security Council at the moment. And I would be, and I strongly, of course, believe that all Member States should support that carve-out. We know, from Ukraine, as we know, from Afghanistan, as we know, from Syria, that it’s the chilling effect of sanctions, which sometimes have not as much impact as the direct effect, but are problematic. And we still see that in Afghanistan. We discussed Afghanistan the other day in my IASC meeting, I hope that we are about to see the creation of a currency swap mechanism in Afghanistan, which will enable liquidity into the economy. So, the programs and agencies can actually get their money to the people who need it. But the chilling effect of sanctions and the direct effect of sanctions need to not impact on humanitarian actions. And I think there’s a growing consensus politically around the world in that regard. Thank you.

It’s déjà vu – you are coming every year, you are asking for a lot of money and it’s never enough. Is OCHA working on some radically new ideas of how to raise money? Are you also approaching rich individuals or companies that make huge profits on the back of the crises? That would be my first question. And the second one, could you mention the biggest donors and tell us in which countries or regions you see room for improvement to contribute to humanitarian aid? Thank you.

Under-Secretary-General: Déjà vu, all over again, absolutely. And it will be déjà vu all over again, probably this time next year as well. I don’t believe there are clever solutions to the gap problem that I’ve described. But there is no doubt that the income that many agencies get from non-governmental sources, from the private sector, from public funding, from individuals, is a substantial part of the income that comes into paying for this programme and others. For example, not part of this, but MSF has 7 million individuals who provide sustained funding for their programs. It’s not a clever trick. It’s not new. Of course, MSF was founded on this premise, and has done an extraordinary job maintaining that and using that money so extraordinarily well around the world. So, agencies, UNHCR has a big program, leveraging money from private sector and rich individuals; NGOs, that’s where I come from, also around the world leveraging money from philanthropists and foundations in the countries in which they’re based.

So, the humanitarian effort is not about OCHA. OCHA is a small part of the fundraising effort for this where we coordinate, but the fundraising is done by us, yes, but also by these extraordinarily efficient agencies. So, having said all that, my Secretary-General, of course, went on record at the COP in favor of a windfall tax. And there have been very significant proposals, including from Oxfam, to say that the profits of fossil fuel companies, a proportion of which a windfall tax could go directly to pay for the costs of climate consequences of fossil fuels. And, of course, I very much support the Secretary-General’s call for that. So, there is some room for manoeuvre there. On the biggest donors, the biggest donors remain the ones you know. The United States, I think, in terms of volume is very generous. The Nordics, of course […] Germany, EU, Sweden, Denmark, not United Kingdom anymore, but you know, I will get back there.

So, these donors who have a tradition of government generosity, it’s really important to distinguish that from public generosity. You know, one of the things that happened in the early days of the Ukraine war, including here in Switzerland, as we know, was the outpouring of financial generosity from individuals in Switzerland and around the world to the people of Ukraine. It shows it can be done, if we align interests and passion, with vehicles to get money to the right people. So those big donors remain, I was in Berlin the other day, an astonishing act through the politicians in Parliament to preserve and indeed increase the humanitarian budget coming into next year. So those are maintaining their lead, if you like, in the race to 0.7 per cent for ODA. There are, of course, others who could join that race. And it’s a constant talk about déjà vu all over again, the term that is always used as is, you know, increasing the donor base. There are many very generous donors, I referred to one just now: The United Arab Emirates, which delivered an extraordinary support for the Government of Yemen, the other day, huge amount of money, but most welcome and well targeted.

There are many governments, like in the Gulf, who deliver directly, who deliver in kind and deliver directly bilateral assistance. It goes back to your question of people under our programme and the people in need. Bilateral assistance remains very significant for many countries and there are all sorts of reasons for that and they are not part of our financial tracking. Of course, we say to all of them, we would like you to join our system and to be part of our program and to benefit from our strengths in programming and access. I want to say that, thank you very much. And I say this, just choosing one country, to the Republic of Korea, who recently doubled, for example, their support for OCHA, by the way. I know Japan – and Korea has hugely increased its level of humanitarian assistance in the past years, as has France – Japan also is a huge donor and is also considering another big increase. So, there are bright spots in terms of increasing the donor base. But we need to focus on that, but not in exclusion of the measures that I referred to earlier about new partners and new ways of doing business.