DHC Clements’ remarks at the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Humanitarian Affairs Segment (HAS)

Excellencies, colleagues,

This is a timely and important conversation—one that couldn’t come at a more critical moment. So, I want to thank you for this opportunity—not only to reflect on the challenges, but to engage seriously in shaping the way forward.

Just yesterday, we opened UNHCR’s Standing Committee, where the same sense of urgency we’ve heard from the ERC today was palpable. The system is overstretched, underfunded, and operating in an increasingly hostile environment. But there is also clarity—clarity that we must regroup, reform, and now create space for renewal.

Last week, UNHCR released its latest Global Trends Report. The numbers are sobering: 122.1 million people are now forcibly displaced worldwide. Sudan has overtaken Syria as the largest displacement crisis globally, with 14.3 million people uprooted.

A staggering figure that continues to rise despite nearly 10 million returns in 2024, including 1.6 million refugees—the highest return figure in over two decades. And the resources we rely on to respond are simply not keeping pace.

This is why the Humanitarian Reset matters. UNHCR supports its ambition.

We support the drive to reduce duplication and bureaucracy—not just to streamline for its own sake, but to shift energy and resources to what matters most: delivering protection and assistance more effectively to people in need. In line with the ERC’s call, this means being bold in rethinking what we do, how we do it, and who should lead.

We strongly support the proposed simplification of clusters, with a reduction from 11 to 8 clusters. We look forward to co-leading, with IOM, IFRC, the new Land and Shelter Cluster to be created from the merger of the Shelter and CCCM Clusters. We also back the proposed consolidation of logistics and ETC clusters, and the integration of the Global Protection Cluster with the Areas of Responsibility.

And as we simplify, we need to bear in mind that there is no one-size-fits-all.

In refugee-only contexts, we do believe the Refugee Coordination Model remains fit for purpose and we have updated it in 2024 to ensure it remained an adequate tool.

In mixed settings, we are committed to working with OCHA and partners to find pragmatic, context-driven solutions—based on presence, capacity, and the needs of the people. We have proposed a joint review of 16 countries with parallel systems—from Afghanistan to Colombia—to assess opportunities for simplification, improved delivery, and clearer leadership.

But whatever the model, it must preserve clarity and ensure that refugees’ specific risks and needs are not lost in broader responses.

We must hold firm on the essentials. We must defend humanitarian principles and protection—especially when it becomes inconvenient or politically costly to do so. Simplification must not come at the expense of protection, or the voices of the most marginalized.

Coordination reforms must also be matched with more robust leadership models.

Yes, leadership is key. Not only individual leadership, but shared leadership—models that are flexible, grounded in comparative advantage, and responsive to diverse operational contexts.

As you mentioned in your question, we must be ready to delegate. To trust one another’s mandates and roles. To work toward coordination models that serve people, not structures.

At the country level, HC/RC plays a vital role in leading, convening, and steering collective action, while preserving the space for agencies to deliver on their specific mandates and accountabilities. This balance is essential to UNHCR, particularly in complex and protracted settings, where refugee and displacement dynamics are often at risk of being overlooked.

The HC/RC’s leadership must be supported—with clear frameworks, political backing, and the tools to build inclusive and accountable responses. Their leadership must also be inclusive and attuned to local realities.

Yes, we do need to be simpler and lighter. But we also need to be more accountable to the people we serve, and include them more in our collective response.

This Reset is an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to localization.

The ERC asked a vital question: what power do we have, and how will we share it? We must also ask how will those we delegate to be able to take on the responsibilities.

Which leads me to my final point: a word on financing.

While all of our partners have felt the impact of our reductions, we made a conscious effort to preserve national NGOs and community-based organizations wherever possible. Compared to 2024, funding to national NGOs has decreased by 37%, and to community-based organizations by 36%, against an overall projected drop of 43%.

Localization must be backed by direct, predictable funding; co-leadership roles for local actors—not just participation; and access to decision-making at all levels.

While pooled funds offer important flexibility, we must address their limitations. They often exclude refugee responses or longer-term resilience programming. Their processes can be burdensome for under-resourced partners. And many local organizations are not eligible for direct funding. If we want pooled funds to drive localization, then we must radically simplify their design, ensure inclusive eligibility, and protect space for UN agencies that channel funding to local actors.

You asked a tough question, and I only had seven minutes to give you the beginning of an answer. But my hope is that the Reset will offer a more comprehensive response to the challenges you’ve raised today.

In a nutshell: yes, we do need the Reset—and UNHCR fully supports it.
But to truly meet the scale and complexity of today’s crises, we need more than structural change. We need strategic, inclusive leadership that puts people first.

That means sharing responsibility, empowering leadership at country level, and creating meaningful space for local and refugee-led organizations. It means coordination that is adaptable to context—not one-size-fits-all.

We stand with the ERC in calling for a bold, reimagined humanitarian system—lighter where it can be, stronger where it must be, and always grounded in protection and purpose.