 I'm very happy to kickstart this panel discussion on the grand bargain. In 2015, the UN Secretary-General appointed a nine-person group of experts in order to work on identifying solutions to the widening gap between exploiting funding requirements for humanitarian action and financial aid, which has increased significantly over the years. Yet, not at pace that matches the escalating needs. On Monday, in this very building, the emergency relief coordinator launched the 2017 Humanitarian Needs Overview, which identifies over $22.2 billion worth of funding requirements for an estimated 129 million people in need of humanitarian assistance. Over the last years, conflicts and natural disasters have indeed led to fast-growing numbers of people in need and a funding gap for humanitarian action of an estimated $10 to $15 billion every year. This is a lot of money, but not out of reach for a world that is producing over $78 trillion of annual GDP. Closing the financial gap would mean that no one would have to die or live without dignity for the lack of money. It would be a victory for humanity at a time when it is much needed, as the Secretary-General made clear in his report in the lead up to the World Humanitarian Summit. The Secretary-General's panel, led by European Commission Vice President Kristalina Georgieva, set out to work on finding solutions to this widening financial gap, producing a comprehensive report in January of this year, which examined three important and interdependent aspects of aid financing challenges. One, is reducing the needs. Two, mobilizing additional funds through either traditional or innovative mechanisms. And three, improving the efficiency of humanitarian assistance. Among the proposed recommendations also featured what we call the grand bargain between major donors and humanitarian organizations. On that basis and under the continued guidance of Miss Georgieva, the 15 largest donors, all of whom are also IOM member states, plus the European Commission along with the development, along with the world's 15 largest humanitarian organizations including IOM, embark on a development of a grand bargain process with the overarching objective to ensure that humanitarian organizations are better able to anticipate and prepare for crisis, that they can deliver protection and assistance to the most vulnerable in a manner that contributes to restoring opportunity and dignity to them, and in so doing build confidence that funds allocated towards humanitarian aid represents adequate value for money to governments on taxpayers. The results of this process is a grand bargain, document that was formally launched in May at the margins of the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul and outlines a set of 51 commitments across 10 wak streams. The documents broad based commitments enables individual agencies to develop supportive actions and commitments that are appropriate for their individual structures and institutional mandates. The cumulative efforts of each organization are envisioned to lead to a system-wide improvement in the way in which humanitarian financing is handled in a realistic and feasible manner for all. It is against this backdrop that IOM has now developed our own internal set of commitments to the grand bargain across all 10 wak streams of the process. To IOM, the grand bargain also holds potential to substantially alter the ways in which the donor community and organizational partners interact. IOM has engaged in the grand bargain process from its earliest days in order to ensure that its views, interests and unique characteristics are well understood. Recognizing that an ambitious global and collective response is needed across humanitarian system and that grand bargain success depends upon the achievements of all stakeholders, IOM is also committed to undertaking the internal improvements necessary to live up to its share of the bargain. A number of elements separate IOM from other international organizations of a similar size that have subscribed to the grand bargain. Number one, we consider ourselves a proximity organization and we take pride in our presence across more than 500 locations in over 150 countries. The organization's operating modality is very much one of direct implementation and delivery of services and we firmly believe it should remain so for fear that otherwise we would begin disconnecting ourselves from those we seek to solve. Number two, IOM has long sought to identify cost efficiencies and savings in carrying out our activities. The principle of decentralization and outsourcing of back office functions goes back more than 20 years. IOM staff do not fly business class and maintains a lean central structures with a mere two to three percent of its 10,000 staff based at its headquarters. Those are just two examples of the attention to efficiencies and savings which drive the organization's business model. Number three, while IOM financial resources have considerably increased over the past few years and this is primarily the case of organizations crisis and post crisis activities and are taken in context affected by conflict and natural disasters, this continues to be done overwhelmingly at a rate of about 97 percent through voluntary, tightly earmarked contributions which offer virtually no leeway for IOM to allocate resources based on actual needs rather than as a result of specific fundraising efforts. In the spirit of the grand bargain, we recognize that more needs to be done as well as an organization. We need to deliver faster and better aid to the millions who depend on it to improve both our internal and collective action and in so doing diminish duplication and waste and hopefully gana further financial resources from our partners. Our commitments run full spectrum of the grand bargain's work streams and will entail significant work from all parts of the organization. IOM will continue to pay particular attention to the need for the objective and impartial needs assessment and in this regard will continue to position its institutional approach, the displacement tracking metrics as an ideal system wide tool to achieve such objectives. Internally, new approaches to cash based programming and our partnerships with local responders will be introduced. In the area of transparency, I'm very pleased to announce that the Director General's decision earlier in the fall to formalize IOM joining the international aid transparency initiative in line with the approach adopted by many of our UN and other partners. Such efforts are ambitious but will only bear fruit if humanitarian donors play their part in this process too particularly in considering new, innovative and more flexible ways to allocate resources to the organization in a manner that does not question the organization's continued belief in project based management and costing, of course. We have already seen some encouraging steps in this regard from a number of our member states and hope that such dialogue and partnership can be enhanced in the months to come. In this regard, today's panel discussion represents a significant opportunity to initiate such conversation with the IOM's broader membership including both those member states who are donors to the organization and those who are not. Regardless of this distinction, the grand buy gain represents an important development for the Interagency Standing Committee and may have a long lasting implication, a significant role for the humanitarian reform deed over a decade ago on the humanitarian ecosystem which IOM is an integral part of. It is therefore a great pleasure for me to welcome today our distinguished panelists of speakers who together represent a broad spectrum of stakeholders, both important donors and critical partners who will represent their own perspectives on the grand buy gain and the steps they and their organizations represent have taken since inception. Without further ado, I'll have the first four panelists, Miss Andrula, Dr. Jamila, Dr. Ahmad and also Miss Natalia and Maryam do the presentation. But last but not least, we thought it's very important to give a voice to a representative of a member state, a very important member state who over the years has established a close partnership with IOM which has led to the development of joint programs, many of which are directly financed by the Government of Colombia and implemented by IOM and that's why we have her Excellency Ambassador Beatrice with us today. So we'll start with the first panelist and that is Miss Andrula and we'll finish with the Ambassador of Colombia. Andrula. It is important to be realistic and to acknowledge in the context of increasing needs and shrinking budgets that there's no doubt of the imperative of addressing the inefficiencies of the current humanitarian system. This is not about saving money in the context of the humanitarian needs but it's about saving lives and being more effective with what we have. Topics reflected in the work streams of the grand bargain such as more predictability, harmonize reporting and better assessments are not new yet grand bargain, the grand bargain brings together issues in a package deal one could say that is a unique opportunity to comprehensively address inefficiencies in humanitarian systems. I will address the role of the European Commission and more specifically DGECO while addressing the three different hats that we currently hold in the context of the grand bargain. The first hat if you would allow me is as a signatory of the grand bargain. The European Commission and DGECO most specifically is dedicated to the full and comprehensive implementation of the grand bargain by all partners. In maintaining the bargain we would like to ensure equal action on both sides both on the side of the donors but also on the side of the humanitarian organizations and we want to ensure that there is a downstream approach i.e. commitments on simplified reporting, flexible funding, multi-year funding and localization must be implemented at all levels of funding from the donors to the UN system, from the UN system to international NGOs, from the international NGOs to NGOs and local respondents and all of the benefits of the implementation of the grand bargain to be felt by the whole chain of actors in implementing projects. To uphold this side of the bargain DGECO has been working on how to best implement grand bargain commitments including developing necessary working methods to start piloting and implementing multi-year planning and funding as well as encouraging, engaging in multi-stakeholder discussions on harmonize reporting and improved needs assessment. In 2017 and 2018 we will be looking into how to implement these commitments in a number of situations. In return the commission expects concrete measures from its partners to become more transparent in terms of cost structures, an improvement on results based reporting and an assessment on where management costs can be reduced and how these savings will be introduced at each programming level. Here I would like to emphasize that we have had recently a Court of Auditors report which looked at how we implement development and humanitarian cooperation projects and the Court of Auditors has insisted that we have to do much better on results based reporting which of course in order to do that we have to work with our partners in order to have those results from the projects we are financing. Another area that we are very much pushing forward in the European Commission is closing the gap or the divide between humanitarian and development cooperation. We have basically started to look at country by country and look at what are the needs of those countries, have a common needs assessment and then see which of the branches of the European Commission as from humanitarian and also development cooperation are best suited to address those needs. I can give you a few examples after the recent hurricane Matthew in Haiti. There was a common mission immediately after the hurricane which went, looked at the needs, made a common needs assessment. Now we have a framework that everything that needs to be done and we are each one implementing a part of that framework without a break if you like, without a break between what is humanitarian and what is development. Similarly in the case of northeast Nigeria in the lake chat crisis again we have developed a common framework where all the needs are addressed and then we see which parts are humanitarian development. Somalia is another case and since we have the ambassador of Colombia here in fact in the case of Colombia there was an analysis of what are the needs in view of the developments and congratulations to the country. And there has been a trust fund that has been set up where both us from humanitarian development and also member states are contributing in order to address the needs that are coming up in the country. So that's with respect to us the European Commission being a signatory to the agreement. The second hat if you like that we're wearing is the co-chairing the needs assessment work stream with Ocha. Needs assessment are crucial for effective and efficient humanitarian aid. Only if we know who is affected, what people need and where affected populations are located we can define an adequate response strategy, mobilize resources and run operations. For humanitarian actors to coordinate their work they need to have a shared understanding of the needs. For donors to allocate their funding they need a good overview of the severity and the characteristics of the crisis. We look at a common needs assessment as the foundation of everything we do. It will allow us to have a common language not only across different partners within the EU system but also with internationalist NGOs, the UN system and even importantly local actors. Within the great bargain the work stream on needs assessment is important for the quick folk crow or the bargain of the bargain. If donors are sufficiently reassured of the quality of a needs assessment they can consider reducing earmarking, provide longer term funding and reduced reporting requirements. All humanitarian organizations need to work together to improve needs assessment in the spirit of the ground bargain. We are working with partners and experts in order to do the following. We will be organizing a technical workshop bringing together all relevant actors to have a shared agreement on the challenges and opportunities to improve needs assessment in practice and not in theory. We will conduct a baseline study to assess to which degree recent needs assessment are meeting the criteria defined in the ground bargain. Are they impartial, are they comprehensive, are they timely, are they transparent and are they useful? And we will provide direct funding to initiatives strengthening the capacity of the humanitarian community to conduct needs assessment. It's quite clear that not all humanitarian actors have the capacity to do needs assessment or to contribute to the needs assessment and we will be making funds available in order to increase capacity on with that respect. And now it brings me to the third cut that the European Commission is currently having. Following the signature of the ground bargain there is a ground bargain facilitation group which has been set up. This group consists of two donors and five doers. The European Commission and Switzerland are representing the donors and we will carry the baton forward for the first year. In that context the commission is joining the others to ensure that the process maintains its momentum and actually delivers results. And within the group the commission is in charge of the independent annual progress report and is currently acting as an interim chair of the group. There has been initiatives in order to try and find a permanent secretariat but in view of the fact that the secretariat has not been identified yet. We are carrying forward that role until hopefully soon there will be secretariat. With respect to the annual reports it's important to focus on monitoring assessing the bargain of the ground bargain whether donors and doers are making equal headway on operationalising and implementing their commitments. And in fact there is a facilitation group that will meet this Friday which is very timely this discussion. And there's three things on the agenda. An assessment of the progress of every work stream, an independent annual report and self-reporting exercise. We've put forward some skeleton of what the self-reporting report of each of the signatories would look like. We discussed on Friday and distribute to all the other signatories in order to be able to report back each one of us on a format that's comparable so that we can see what has happened. And we have planned ahead various other meetings in 2017. Finally the commission looks forward to continue working with IOM and other partners on ambitious and action-oriented follow-up. My final word is that we have to implement the ground bargain not only because we are signatories and aligned not only but more importantly because the people in need of humanitarian aid deserve to get the most effective and efficient aid delivered to them. Thank you. Thank you very much Miss Andrula. Jamila? Let me at the outset emphasise that it's important to understand that the ground bargain is not the solution to the humanitarian challenges we face today. Earlier this week we heard from the ERC on the humanitarian needs overview that the needs keep growing and the gaps keep getting wider. The ground bargain is only one of the three fronts on which we need to take action. The others being that we cannot forget the humanitarian system is really grossly underfunded. And there is a need for more resources. Given that climate change, protracted crises and more uncertain global politics, it is very unlikely that needs will decline. And secondly we do need to diversify our resources. We cannot rely solely on the generosity of traditional donors and we need to find new sources of income and unlock capital to fund humanitarian response. And thirdly we need to be more efficient and effective ourselves as mentioned by the previous two speakers. And of course the unwritten statement is that we really need to end a lot of these crises. Increased support to local action comes under the third objective of this ground bargain and will contribute to a more effective, efficient humanitarian response. One that is capable of reaching more people in need. In this discussion it's sometimes forgotten that localisation is not an end in itself but a means towards effective, efficient and principled humanitarian action. And I underline the word principled. I'm often told that this debate is polarized. It need not be. The objective is to ensure that local and national responders play an appropriate role and have a commensurate voice in humanitarian response. There will always be a need for international humanitarian action. There will always be things that may be better done by international actors. As local as possible, as international as necessary is about building complementarity for the appropriate balance between local, national and international humanitarian assistance and that balance needs to be found. It is difficult looking at current statistics to think that this complementarity is being achieved. At present international humanitarian finance and coordination mechanisms are heavily skewed towards international actors. Over the last ten years the proportion of international humanitarian funding channeled to affected state governments has ranged from 1% to 7% but has generally been below 5%. From 2010 to 2014, local civil society actors receive on average a mere 0.3% of international humanitarian funding directly from Donas. In the meantime, reviews of UN-led humanitarian coordination mechanisms in particular the cluster system have consistently found that notwithstanding strong language in their terms of reference, they are consistently falling short in engaging, empowering and supporting local humanitarian actors. A number of factors are cited from holding meetings in English or worse in UNis, to locating far away from governmental coordination centres or to duplicating or ignoring domestic ministerial lines. LNAP's 2015 State of the Humanitarian System report similarly found that its eight sector survey respondents were fairly negative about the participation of local actors in interagency coordination with 74% describing it as fair or poor. It is no wonder that so many of the local actors we met along the journey to the World Mission Summit have expressed inexplicably the lack of voice in the international humanitarian sector. But much more than funding, what we need is a mindset shift among international humanitarian actors, particularly in three important areas. Firstly, a shift from treating local actors as subcontractors to equal partners in humanitarian response. We need to share risks down the line and thirdly, we need to move from seeing a localization phenomenon as an abstract one to a more differentiated and context specific complementarity between local, national and international action. As someone who's been in this sector for a number of years, I'm shocked that the principles of partnership developed by ICVA and other organisations in partnership are completely ignored by so many people who actually were developing these principles of partnership. We need to go back to basics. So these three issues that I mentioned are deeply interrelated. It's hard to isolate them. There are a number of actions that will probably allow us to address them together. Firstly, we need to support the organisational development of local and national responders including for financial management, domestic resource mobilisation, project management, accountability and reporting and good governance. Fidishiri risk and accountability is often cited as the biggest barrier to funding local action. If we are to overcome that, we must invest in the capacities of local actors to raise and manage their own funds. Such investments could be targeted to local and national responders in high risk contexts well before disaster or conflict strikes. Nothing we need to take a preparedness lens very, very seriously. It has to be part of a larger strategy to improve the quality of response and reduce risk at national level. Such investments can also occur as operations are ongoing in ways that would enable learning by doing and organisational buy-in for these efforts. The Red Cross and Red Crescent movement that is including IFRC and ICRC, we are making great strides in this area. For the first time we are setting up a joint investment mechanism to focus on capacity strengthening of national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies in high risk contexts. We are also working increasingly with UN agencies such as the World Food Programme and also with IOM to support organisational development and operational strength of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies. We invite all of you here who are interested to join us in this endeavour. Second, we need to recognise that complex humanitarian environments pose challenges for everyone. I often hear that local organisations cannot be principled in conflict situations. I find this, I will be polite, I will find it surprising. As in the hottest conflicts today, Syria for example, assistance is almost entirely delivered by local organisations and local staff of the Syrian Red Crescent. They are the main operational partner for international organisations as well. That said, it is undoubtedly true that local actors face challenges in hotly contested political environments. But so do international actors. Local actors can be challenged by their local affiliations. Just as international actors often lack acceptance by affected communities because of their perceived alliance with geopolitical interests. Yet we must be honest about these challenges. Nearly every international humanitarian worker can cite an example where they benefited from local knowledge, which got them access or a better relationship with the host government or made them design their programme differently. We need to be forthright about the challenges that both local and international actors face in conflict and work to achieve complementarity and share risks so that aid gets as quickly as possible to those who need it most and local and international actors alike enjoy enough security to do their job. And this is why the fundamental principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent are crucial. And thirdly, we need to understand that localisation cannot and will not look the same everywhere. As I've seen from my experience in the movement, the balance between local, national and international response will look radically different depending on the context, depending on the nature of emergency and the level of existing local and national capacity. I'm pleased to see that there are many pilot projects looking at these issues already. Just recently, Ocha and a number of NGOs hosted an event to look at coordination with local actors during the Nepal response, Nepal earthquake response. And I know they will be doing much more work on this going forward. The localisation marker, which will track how much funding local actors receive is already under development in a process chaired by CAFOD. Experts are going to work on many of the questions that are asked about the grand bargain and it is critical that we use the momentum on this issue to create a deep evidence base about the advantages of local action and what localisation can mean in different contexts. In my role as co-champion for the Grand Bargain Workstream or localisation, we are planning a large amount of work already and we are particularly interested in working on how we can define and have much more evidence and implement localisation in a way that leads to effective, relevant and principled Himachayan action. It is really surprising that what might be conceived as a most natural thing to do that is working with local actors is actually the most contentious discussion sometimes in the grand bargain. But in closing, let me leave you with what I call the forties that I feel will be required if we are going to be more effective and efficient as demanded by the grand bargain in terms of localisation. The first team being timeliness and timeliness is everything. The second team is tailored action, tailored to the needs of affected people and therefore the tailored so that they are also involved. The third team being trust, which is critical. Now, honestly, if we ask ourselves who would fit the requirements of the treaties above, I have no doubt that organisations including our organisation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement embedded in communities, local organisations, local civil society, local governments and other local institutions will come to mind first in meeting the treaties. The last team I want to throw into the pot is technology and I think technology is going to be a game changer in how local action will be able to be accelerated in future. You and I know the cell phone has revolutionised our lives, in fact. How many of us walk out of the room and realise we haven't got our cell phone and go into panic. So I think that one of the best stories I can tell you is one Red Cross society member told me they were giving aid packages in Africa and one of the recipients said, oh, hang on a minute, but you gave a completely different package in another country and showed a photograph on a cell phone. So I think that we have to take technology very seriously and how we actually look at the people we are dealing with, the constituencies and how they will have a voice whether we like it or not. So I'm going to leave you with that and once again thank you so much for allowing me to share our thoughts on this. Jamila, thank you very much. I have now Dr. Ahmad at the end. Good afternoon. Your excellencies, first of all, allow me to thank the IOM for inviting me here as well as inviting the organisations I represent, IGVA as well as Mercy Malaysia to be here today to provide an NGO perspective I should also say at the outset that there is no single NGO view on anything, not just the grand bargain and therefore I would restrain myself from proclaiming that the views that I will present to you are the absolute views of the NGO community diverse and as interesting as that community is. I will offer you only one side of the story based on my own personal as well as IGVA's involvement in the grand bargain and as a grand bargain Sherpa. Before I go any further, I would like also to recognise and acknowledge Dr. Jamila Mahmood who is after all the founder of Mercy Malaysia and I would like to say that without her laying the foundation Mercy Malaysia would not be where we are today. Ladies and gentlemen, why did IGVA get involved in the grand bargain? For those of you who haven't heard of IGVA, we are a network of large and small, medium and not so medium, eastern and western, northern and southern, international, regional, national and local NGOs. We are dedicated to principle effective humanitarian action. We have worked over the last decades to promote protection, assistance and solutions for people on the move. We have worked with IOM and UNACR to connect to humanitarian NGOs and we have been for so many years a principal partner of UNACR organizing the NGO Consultations annually. We were quite involved this year in the 19th September summit on large-scale movements of refugees and migrants and we have been working with NGOs to prepare for this week's High Commissioner's Dialogue on children on the move, just as an example. Several years ago, we asked our members an open-ended question. What would they like IGVA to focus on? We heard back spontaneously from a clear majority of members that they were nearly all struggling to secure adequate predictable funding for principled humanitarian action. IGVA responded by investing time and resources to improve NGO understanding of the financing landscape and support NGO engagement in processes relevant to them. Now this happened way before the talk about the grand bargain and the World Humanitarian Summit. We did this, for example, by co-chairing with the serve secretariat the Interagency Standing Committee Humanitarian Financing Task Team. This is the only working-level body that brings together the UN agencies, IOM, the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement, NGOs and the World Bank to tackle humanitarian financing. In this task team, we have four key objectives, adequate and accessible financing, reducing burdensome donor conditions, addressing the humanitarian development nexus and increasing the transparency of aid flows. Coincidentally, all these four objectives also form four of the ten work streams in the grand bargain. We were working for years on these issues when suddenly we got a boost at the end of 2015 at a briefing held by the then Vice President Kristelina Georgieva that there is this thing called the grand bargain and that a high-level panel for humanitarian financing had been set up by the UN Secretary General. The high-level panel on humanitarian financing issued a report in January 2016 called Too Important to Fail. I happened to attend this launch in Dubai and from this report, the grand bargain on efficiencies in the humanitarian system was born. It was a brilliantly packaged formula, bringing donors and agencies together to find ways to be more efficient. At that particular time and moment, we in the NGO community were divided and a little bit apprehensive, to be honest, about the incoming and upcoming World Humanitarian Summit. A lot of NGOs, both international and local mind you, not just local NGOs but also international NGOs were very unsure what the benefit of the World Humanitarian Summit would be but the moment we saw the grand bargain, NGOs felt that this was something that could end up being more focused and could have a tangible outcome. Initially the grand bargain was meant to bring together only the top five donors and the top six UN agencies. We advocated for NGOs to get a seat at the table as they are often on the front lines. Fortunately, in then Vice President Georgieva and her co-chair, His Royal Highness the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Nazrin Shah, we had allies who agreed to this proposal. Unfortunately, the grand bargain shepa negotiators were then expanded to include three NGO networks including IGVA for an overall balance of 15 donors and 15 agencies. What are we talking about when we discuss the grand bargain? Having the privilege to participate in the grand bargain shepa negotiations, I myself and my colleagues witnessed the evolution from the first meeting in February in Amsterdam to the final ceremony in Istanbul at the World Humanitarian Summit. IGVA also co-chatted with Germany the last meeting to transition the grand bargain from negotiation to implementation. Of the 10 thematic work streams negotiated, the most heated shepa debates were about needs assessments and the humanitarian development divide. So it's not surprising that Director Kamarnira actually brought the importance of needs assessment up. Far fewer battles were fought over something that is in a word less interesting and boring, which IGVA had the leadership role on which was harmonising and simplifying reporting. Of all the 50 plus grand bargain commitments, those related to reducing burdensome donor conditions could well be a game changer for our colleagues, especially NGOs in the field and that's why IGVA took on the leadership role in harmonising and simplifying reporting requirements. Donor conditions are implicit in the grand bargain commitments related to transparency, communicating how funds are spent by whom, reducing management costs which includes harmonising agreement templates, being more transparent about cost structures, sharing partner capacity assessments, multi-year funding which is something that means so much to a lot of NGOs, both international and national which allows us then to plan and programme beyond one year at a time. Your excellencies there are numerous NGOs doing very good work in the field especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and in the Middle East who can only operate on a year to year basis. Every year at the end of the year in December like we are in now at the beginning of the year in January some of these NGOs go with their staff without pay, go without amenities that we take for granted. That's why it's so important. Less year marking of donor contributions which will give us more flexibility to respond to changing context and just to echo Jamila on this also to allow for some of the funding to be used for development of national and local actors which is core to increasing their capacity enhancing their ability to then effectively deliver aid. Supporting national and local responders including by reducing the many barriers they face in accessing funds including UN country base pool funds and last but not least simplifying and harmonizing reporting requirements. Why are these so important? Our members came together in 2016 to support the less paper more aid initiative to better demonstrate the impact of donor conditions on NGOs. We put together desk research as well as literature reviews with questionnaires, interviews, case studies etc. but it was not a scientific process but it shed light on the problem and potential solutions. In terms of volume NGOs had an average of 36 reporting deadlines per country per year for some international NGOs as high as 80. Now for some national NGOs the numbers might be a lot less but because their capacity is a lot less even 5 is a burden. Complexity the complexity of procedures require high level of skills and sophisticated administrative and financial systems management. Again to Eko Jamila's point most national and local actors don't have these skills and don't have these capacities and even international NGOs sometimes struggle. One NGO calculated it could have saved 11,000 hours on financial reporting for its nine largest donors if those donors agreed on cost definition and accepted the same finance reporting template. We need simplified and harmonized requirements that are proportionate to the size and duration of the project. We are not asking for no reporting at all we understand donor needs that reporting is essential but we want them to be more harmonized and simplified. We need easy to access, easy to understand guidance and training on procedures. On duplication between 40 to 60% of partner capacity assessments result in duplicated work and 100% of NGOs in our own survey agreed that partner capacity assessments should be shared between donors which is a grand bargain commitment. In a related development the Netherlands in the grand bargain has been a keen advocate of the common data standard IOT which Mohammed has just said IOM is now a part of whose catchphrase is published once use often This would require donors to drop other reporting requirements in lieu of receiving reports via this common channel if it can be agreed on although I must say that for most national and local actors please do not insist that they also subscribe to IOT common standards of reporting some form of delegation of this duty must be made feedback if you want a proxy indicator to see if all this documentation is being used by recipients what can you look at our solution was asking NGOs if they got feedback we found a lack of follow up or feedback on documents submitted and procedures completed meaning that despite all those man hours and hours on reporting and doing financial reports some of those papers some of those documents will not even look that and let me be clear here we again are not questioning the need for accountability and transparency in the use of donor funding however we should recognize that these processes are not optimal and are not up to date let's take a fresh look at reporting use it as an opportunity to increase institutional learning enhance existing capacities and improve delivery I'll end where our network began with this grand bargain process what do we want to achieve will IGVA and its members want to support an ecosystem of diverse actors where frontline responders receive adequate and timely resources including national and local actors for such an ecosystem to thrive we need to roll back the bureaucracy your excellencies we need less paper, more aid which coincidentally is the theme of IGVA study on this subject no one can do it alone IGVA and Germany as co-conveners of the reporting work stream held a consultation last month of grand bargain signatories looking at options for harmonized reporting templates and agreed that a process to help us achieve our commitments by the end of 2018 hopefully we want to bring in the people who read and write reports and find ways to reduce the volume of requirements and harmonize around best practice in a few years time we want to check back with stakeholders and hear that they are spending less man hours filling paperwork and donors are pleased with the improved quality of the information they do actually receive so let's remember again what the grand bargain is and what is not I think both Andrula and Jamila have said this but I need to repeat this the grand bargain is a well crafted opportunity to find ways donors and agencies can work better together but not, I repeat and I echo Jamila Andrula on this the solution to all our problems particularly when it comes to addressing the systemic funding gap and collectively addressing risks the success of the grand bargain we feel will rise and fall on the backs of implementers both international and national so we should never lose sight of those on the front lines we thank IOM for being a key player in the process of putting front and center affected and affected populations at the center and having a high commitment to transparency I can testify that what Mohammad said about IOM staff not traveling on business class as definitely true a few months ago I was going back from Geneva from an ISC principles meeting and as I was settling into my seat I noticed Ambassador Swing sitting down into his in the same economy class cabin so I can vouch that that is actually very true Ladies and gentlemen the coming together however of UN and non-UN actors of implementers and donors of NGOs and non-NGO partners like the IOM was probably the biggest biggest single success of the grand bargain we need to do more of it all the time it may not be feasible in all aspects but we need to try and find ways to do that again taking off my IGVA hat for a while finally as president of Mercy Malaysia I must say that national, local, regional and southern international NGOs like Mercy Malaysia are putting a lot of hope on the grand bargain and that it will finally deliver as in its commitment to actually deliver and ensure that local and national actors get a more substantive amount of the funding but also be assisted in reducing their cost and increasing their capacity to actually manage operations and that we thank the IOM again and we welcome council member ideas on how to proceed with the process that is both inclusive and result oriented thank you very much Dr. Ahmad thank you very much I fully endorse your one comment also on the time we spent on different reporting requirements so I think something we can come back to in the next few minutes as well I would like to as has been said by many people before the humanitarian situation worldwide is dire the number of refugees has never been so high and also humanitarian aid flows have increased the gap between what is needed and what is available is still much too large a change of the humanitarian system is needed to reach as many people in need as possible with the limited resources available now and in the future the world humanitarian summit created the momentum needed to take the necessary steps to make the humanitarian sector more effective and more efficient especially the commitments of the grand bargain have the potential to change the system because of their concrete and direct nature the Netherlands has been and is one of the strong supporters of the grand bargain package to make sure we all work as cost efficiently as possible so that our humanitarian assistance reaches as many people as possible the first impressions of implementation of the grand bargain commitments are a bit disappointing in our eyes however the recent grand bargain meeting in Bonn gave us confidence that we are back on track after a few concrete steps forward have been taken nonetheless it remains important to keep momentum and take implementation seriously especially since political attention has moved to other issues we are in this together we cannot afford to put ourselves in the spotlight at the world humanitarian summit and then forget about implementation we owe it to ourselves but even more importantly to the people we need to help partners therefore need to be critical and call on each other to account for progress or delays we realize that implementation can be challenging as well as monitoring and continuous commitment cooperation and transparency are key to remain on top of it the Netherlands has urged all Dutch partners to monitor and implement the commitments made as part of the grand bargain and the Dutch minister for foreign trade and development cooperation is very involved and one of the drivers of the grand bargain she is committed to implementing what has been agreed and to advocate the bargain made the Netherlands is in particular active on transparency transparency of aid is essential to remain credible as humanitarians any story about lack of efficiency or higher response costs is detrimental to the sector and its public support in that sense we welcome the IOM initiative to put the grand bargain on the agenda as IOM is one of the more cost efficient organizations together with the World Bank the Netherlands co-confines the transparency work stream of the grand bargain chosen for a robust monitoring and support structure for the transparency work stream we have hired development initiatives which is one of the most trusted organizations on transparency and on the international aid transparency initiative they will approach all partners for discussion and input we believe that the use of an open data standard not only enhances transparency aid flows and results it also means that if fully implemented reporting requirements can be harmonized and simplified of course steps have to be taken before we reach that full potential especially with good privacy and confidentiality policies but we're sure that ICRC will keep reminding us of that important issue to make the grand bargain a success we as partners need to take the necessary steps ourselves as soon as possible to implement all commitments there can be no cherry picking implementation of the entire package is essential we therefore urge all partners to implement and monitor progress and we applaud IOM for the follow up given to the grand bargain as outlined in its recent paper and we're pleased that IOM will soon join International Aid Transparency Initiative IOM can play an active role in underlining the importance of the commitments to change the system it can share knowledge and experience the grand bargain can be seen as an uninspiring set of technical changes but if all of us implement these changes it will be a revolution also for receiving organizations like IOM think of more cash multi annual funding unear marks funding better needs assessments and less reporting due to harmonization and also more transparency and more accountability towards beneficiaries this is only possible if all grand bargain partners do what they signed up for we will do our part and we offer support from experts and convening capacity will only be a success if we jointly implement and are in it together thank you thank you very much Natalie I have my next speaker Mariam I really welcome the IOM's positive engagement on the commitments of the World Humanitarian Summit and in particular the grand bargain the UK sees the IOM as a key player in delivering the grand bargain and we really look forward to working with you further on reform I'd also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the IOM on formalizing its new status and in particular to thank Director General Swing for his strong leadership and clear determination that the IOM continues to maintain its responsiveness flexibility and cost effectiveness so the UK believes that the commitments made in the grand bargain can deliver real change and speak to the recommendations on the high level panel on humanitarian financing and the Secretary General's report Smarter financing for reform is important and I think we all on this panel have agreed that addressing the increasing gap between humanitarian need and available resources needs new ways of preparing for financing and managing crisis response this means that the system needs to change the way it responds and of course the grand bargain isn't the full story as others have said but it is a crucial part of ensuring the humanitarian system is better able to meet the needs of crisis affected people and as other panelists have said ultimately saving lives and meeting the needs of those people is what this agenda is about the grand bargain holds the potential to substantially alter the ways in which the humanitarian donor community and organisational partners interact but again echoing what others have just said we'd go further and see implementation of the grand bargain as shaping the way operational agencies interact not only with donors but also the people they serve so again others have said that the grand bargain needs to be seen as a package and we very much recognize that all of the elements are important but I'd just like to pick out three of the commitments in particular where IOM have stated their goals in the very good recent paper the first of these is improving transparency as Natalia has just mentioned improving transparency is an increasingly important consideration for the UK and IFID and we're also very encouraged that the IOM is now committed to formally joining the IRT initiative by March 2017 that's really welcome it's an important step along with the measures that the IOM is taking to better track funding streams we also note and are encouraged by the complimentary but essential steps that IOM is taking to introduce results based management that's very welcome the secondly we strongly agree on the need for greater commitment in part of the humanitarian community towards a more objective impartial and inclusive approach to needs assessment in the context both of sudden onset disaster responses and more protracted situations we'll look to both the IOM and all other agencies who committed to the grand bargain to make the necessary shift to place impartial assessments at the heart of more collaborative and coordinated analysis prioritization and operational response thirdly, as well as impartial needs assessments the participation revolution can accelerate the reforms that are needed we're really pleased to see that the IOM will finalize and implement a revised accountability for affected populations framework in 2017 and that this will be mainstream throughout key programmatic areas and that it will ensure that the results will feed systematically into project design and modification the UK and DFID will be seeking evidence of agencies commitments on this priority in operations in the near future I'd now like to focus on some of the ways that we as the UK's department for international development, DFID are living up to our grand bargain commitments so as well as signing up to the core commitments across the 10 work streams DFID made a number of individual commitments most of these are in line with our current operations although there are a number that have implications in terms of resources, choice of instruments or changes in DFID systems and I'd like to focus on a few of these and some of them actually respond to some of the issues that other panelists have just raised the first one I wanted to mention cash here we want to be bold and ambitious and continue to lead in this area and DFID country offices and programs are already heading in this direction it's a key area for us the second area is on increasing multi-year multi-partner funding in protracted and recurrent crises and that's increasing from a current one third of bilateral humanitarian funding in line with good practice for protracted crises we also intend to maintain 30% of our humanitarian funding as un earmarked or softly earmarked in return for system reform measured against the grand bargain commitments we already meet this benchmark through a combination of core funding to humanitarian agencies and contributions to country based pools other panelists have mentioned reporting requirements and we really recognize that streamlining of results reporting requirements is an area where we don't perform as well as other major donors and changes to DFID systems will be needed to implement more efficient reporting arrangements and we recognize this and we'll be doing more on this to demonstrate the importance the UK attaches to meaningful progress against the core commitments and the development of a robust monitoring mechanism we will link our future funding to the grand bargain commitments and we're already making a start on this too the UK also adjusted its recent rapid onset response to Hurricane Matthew by grounding it in the grand bargain commitments this approach was taken right from the start of the response including program design and decision making through to implementation UK's exit we're also working with country teams to ensure bilateral funding arrangements also support grand bargain implementation for example this is the case in our new programs in the Syria region we plan for core funding to support the implementation of the grand bargain by UN agencies and are working closely with colleagues to ensure all relevant UN agencies are also held to account for the grand bargain commitments and finally in partnerships with others we're looking to identify and establish three or four grand bargain country pilots where we can road test its implementation thank you very much thank you very much Maryam I have my last but not least speaker, our excellent city ambassador of Colombia now I'm going to start by telling you that Colombia is not a signatory grand bargain however it endorses the various commitments which are contained in and geared to enhancing efficiency of the international system and building its positive impact Colombia is assuming its humanitarian commitments and respective demands stemming from the different agencies based in the country there are great many such agencies in Colombia it sees the need for a sincere conference building dialogue and for greater coordination ever since the victim unit was created by the national body in Colombia we are seeing better coordination between the various UN agencies in the government the humanitarian unit is filled by consist of various UN bodies NGOs and also by international observers and IOM is part of this very team here I will be referring mainly to our relationship with IOM within the Colombia framework the team within the country is based on a humanitarian response plan in identifying priorities this plan for 2016 identifies three strategic results first of all the intersectional response that is effective and acts as a compliment in saving lives first of all really the emphasis on saving lives secondly strengthening rights the human rights in all fields relating to persons and vulnerable beings and third building institutional capacity and generating resilience for between persons at risk and affected communities Colombia stresses the need for coordination between states and this stresses that this should not be seen as a final resort it should be seen as the first option here we have been working together to align priorities with those of the various international agencies we try to bear in mind our national institutions as well as the approaches of the different donors the multi-year alliance developed by Colombia with various, with the IOM and with co-funding from Colombia offers the concrete example of the ways in which we can identify new funding sources which can benefit all actors outside the traditional humanitarian and development models where we have usually seen international cooperation the government resources are the main source of funding for policies and programs aimed at social economic development and humanitarian response in Colombia the government has sought the support of implementing partners within the international community on various reasons between these complimentary capacities co-funding institutional capacity building and exchange of this is very important exchange of knowledge between different countries knowledge and best practices for IOM Colombia has joined forces with the organization to take up migratory challenges including for example trafficking in persons the terrible recruitment of children by illegal armed groups and also the return of migrants living abroad and also the phenomenon of internal displacement which in our conflict has affected over 7 million Colombian citizens the government at IOM have two key instruments to ensure the relevance of their work together the first such tool is a strategic plan developed jointly by the government and IOM which lays down a cooperation framework with IOM and aligns it with the national development parties which we have worked out in our national development plan and also within the territorial development plans and the different provincial development plans which we have in our country in efforts to come up with a plan for 2015-2019 there was input from over 20 government institutions to define the areas of action for the organization within this period this plan sets strategic objectives within which we have the facilitation of processes to build peace which to favor organized migration based on human rights this second such instrument are the cooperation agreements which reflect the input by the Colombian government and the implementing partner to achieve the common development objective within the past five years IOM has been the main implementing partner for 147 projects funded with government resources and this has been in this has come up to about $150 million Colombia has looked for implementing partners within the international community to cope with situations which complexity are beyond its own grasp IOM has provided resources and this has been in addition to our own one example of such situations has been what we call the winter wave between 2010 and 2011 the El Lanina phenomenon has ravaged Colombia with an impact on development and human mobility tens of thousands of people have been housed in shelters and many many children have had to stop their studies because their schools have been damaged or destroyed the Colombian government has funded the bulk of such response emergency response and reconstruction but it has needed strategic support from IOM to ensure better risk management and this has been provided by IOM and the idea is to fill in some of the gaps especially in isolated and remote areas or conflict zones with recourse resources provided by the Colombian government IOM has helped supply more than 600 educational institutions in 11 departments and in addition based on its overall shelter management experience the Colombian government asked IOM to help build capacities within the Colombian administration with regard to the coordination and management of temporary shelters in more than 50 mayoralties implementing partners like IOM play a key role with regard to cooperation in accordance with international agreements and priority set to ensure that these resources are not duplicated and that they are mutually responsible and also to ensure donor transparency to give you just one example in 2012 Colombia introduced the law on victims of land considered by many as the most comprehensive ambitious global effort with regard to comprehensive compensation for conflict victims this law clearly illustrates the importance that the Colombian government attaches to meeting victims needs including the launching of a formal peace dialogue the victims law sets out a real challenge by providing compensation for conflict victims and today there are some 8 million people who have been affected by this conflict the Colombian government has solicited IOM support with regard to rehabilitation and compensation to illustrate this partnership there were efforts to come up with a single victims registry and information system and this has led to the a better coordination of efforts this there are some where some 52 bodies involved in getting this underway there has been the compilation of more than 32 databases on information located different in different government bodies another example within the framework of the Colombian government's cooperation with IOM there has been a partnership with Ministry of Health and Social Protection for institutional capacity building particularly at the territorial level between 2008 and 2016 the ministry and IOM signed 8 cooperation agreements to meet the needs of migrants and other vulnerable groups there has this has been particularly relevant for local authorities the Colombian government has provided some 65 million dollars of support cooperation was aimed at building capacities and ensuring the exchange of best practices capacity building as well we have learned from other countries in a great many fields with regard to policies to meeting the needs of these different high risk groups and displaced populations we have learned about reinsertion reintegration processes for children and better interagency coordination in emergency situations we have also provided better information in the great many cases we have shared experiences and learned from experience of other countries over the years since 1999 more than 50,000 Colombian combatants from illegal armed groups have been demobilized in Colombia the government has developed a very successful model for their reintegration IOM we couldn't have done this on our own international cooperation has been divisive in this respect and IOM support was key IOM joined this process in early 2003 as a partner specialized in social and economic reintegration with funds provided by the Colombian government and USAID through IOM the Colombian agency for reintegration has hosted 6 international seminars and these events were attended by more than 200 people from 40 countries to map out a roadmap and ensure the reintegration of former combatants in Colombia we as you know the Colombian government has signed a peace agreement with the FARC the revolutionary armed group within the country this has been approved by both chambers of the Colombian Congress this historic event put an end to a fund conflict which tragically lasted for over half a century during the challenges for implementing the agreement are enormous this is why we are certain that we can continue to count on IOM's valuable support with regard to the reintegration process compensation rebuilding of affected communities in the urban and rural areas but I couldn't stop today without expressing my thanks over IOM's 165 years of existence to director general swing to all of the IOM team and of course to the donors which have made possible our alliance with in this area peace in Colombia is just barely getting underway and now we really need cooperation we need synergies we need a frank dialogue a real open dialogue we need critical analysis we need efforts focusing on persons and not trying to replace this day but we have to really join forces before the common good of citizens thank you very much thank you very much ambassador I will not do justice we even try and moderate the very good panellists today so I'll open up for questions and comments to the membership I have Sweden thanks to all the panellists and special thanks also to the president for mercy Malaysia it was really very useful to hear the way you portrayed it Sweden as you perhaps know has been engaged in the grand bargain all the way and I would just like to contribute if you comment from our perspective that I'm happy to say alliance with much of what has been said here already for Sweden too the grand bargain is ultimately about partnership it is an agreement that needs to take into account actions by agencies as well as donors it needs to focus on global processes as well as on the field and it needs to include development actors alongside humanitarians and we completely agree with what Under Secretary General Mahmood said the agreement also has to take into account the critical partnership with local actors and the voices of affected populations taken together this broad approach is what makes the grand bargain unique and successful if we all contribute as some of you know Sweden is co-lead with the ICRC for the work stream on flexible financing and near marking agencies and donors will hear from us shortly in an effort to collect policies and best practices so that we can achieve our common commitments under this work stream we believe that flexible financing is key to achieving many of the other commitments within the grand bargain finally thank you to Ms Lynne Tvelts for underlining the need for all of us to look at ourselves first Sweden is incorporating the grand bargain commitments in our strategy for humanitarian aid through CEDA we're also working to ensure that we are internally coordinated in order to live up to our commitments we will certainly engage in dialogue with partners on their commitments but we believe that it is more effective if we've done our own homework first thank you very much Sweden I have India thank you very much Mr Mordeta one thing is very clear from the panel discussion that all countries are and all organizations are interested to implement the spirit and the road map which was decided in the grand bargain and this is really a welcome sign and this is stepping stone for reforms in the humanitarian system I have certain questions and any of the panelists may answer what are the plans which has been made to strengthen the local and national actors in your strategy and what is the extent of gas-based intervention which has been proposed maybe for next 2-3 years so far as my question to IOM is concerned after becoming a related organization status IOM has got an access to the intra agency standing committee executive committee on humanitarian affairs global migration group and country level security management we want to know that is it possible for IOM to quantify or if they have done any kind of study to quantify and indicate us that in percentage terms or in absolute terms what is the expected savings or what kind of efficiencies they are going to gain out of this new arrangement thank you very much thank you very much India any panelist would like to take the localization and cash Jamila Yontosad thank you very much for the it's a very important question on localization as IFRC the modus operandi is through our local and national red cross and red cross in society so it's a natural way of working for the federation and what we are really doing is really ramping up with ICRC a real investment in national local action because we do believe that if we have strong national local actors that they will be most of the time at the forefront of response and through that too to be able to help them as local and national red cross to access pool funds for example in countries where there are country based pool funds and so forth we also have our disaster relief emergency fund and other pool funds mechanisms within the federation that we can actually help red cross but as a sherpa and the co-champion for this work stream we also have to look beyond the red cross and looking at local NGOs and local governments as well and local actors who are really most of the time the first responders we are engaging now in really mapping out what are the initiatives, where are the best practices that we have seen, where are the gaps and what is it, what are the concerns and how do we address them I mentioned earlier it is about accountability about all the other issues that we need to look at as well what capacities need to be built. On cash we are really committed to cash British Red Cross is one of our leading agencies within the federation and we are in discussion now to actually establish for the movement in the center of excellence for cash at the British Red Cross so that we as a whole federation can actually start moving our programming much more into cash but along that as well there are other things that need to be built transparency, we are committed to Yati and so on and so forth Havandrula and then Mariam the importance of local responders and of host communities cannot be underestimated there are studies that say that in the case of a hurricane or an earthquake something of the order of 90 to 95% of the people that are saved are saved by the local communities and that at least deserves our attention and our respect and that's why we should work more closely with them to increase their capabilities having said that there are issues also vis-a-vis the European Commission at least that make it difficult for us to finance directly local responders because there is also an issue of how you define them you could consider that the local Red Cross is a local responder through the international Red Cross in which case we can do it but with small local NGOs normally according to our financial regulation it's not possible currently to do it there are possibilities within the European Union instruments for local actors to receive financing from us for increasing capacity so that is something that can be tapped in by the local actors on the cash based interventions this is one of the areas that we are putting a lot of emphasis on currently I think globally it's only about 10% of humanitarian aid on average that is going through cash in the European Commission we are doing something of the order of 30 to 35% is the focus for next year we consider that this is a very efficient way of delivering aid and it's a way of not just delivering aid for traditionally it's been used for food aid but also to do a more global needs based assessment and deliver aid through some sort of cash transfers either these being in cash or in vouchers or sometimes we use transfers through GSMs like the MPSA system or now in our operations which are doing in Turkey we are massively using a type of credit card to which transfers are made for all the needs one point I'd like to raise with respect to cash based interventions is the link with traditional development actions in traditional development projects we do a lot of projects and programs on creating social safety nets when we're doing projects in social areas we create the methodology the infrastructure for addressing the needs of people in third countries when a disaster hits if there is a social safety net it's much much easier much faster to channel also humanitarian aid to those people and now we have three types of categories of social safety nets either nets social safety nets like in Kenya for example which the government itself has introduced social safety nets which we have financed with the development under the development umbrella or social safety nets that we are financing under the humanitarian aspect so for us this is a very very important area and something that we are actively promoting thank you thank you I think I can just agree with Andrula because she's made many of the points both on local and national responders and on cash that I wanted to make but particularly on cash just to agree with that and particularly the advantages where it's designed well to contribute to economic recovery and also particularly on empowerment of women where there is a good deal of evidence and I think you asked for some examples and there are sort of a number of examples of where we are increasingly using cash Lebanon, Jordan in fact in Lebanon over 60% of our support to Syrian families is now cash Iraq, Uganda Kenya and Ethiopia and I think the point that Andrula made about the link to social protection programs is important and sort of an area that we are also increasingly working on the UK has actually made a specific commitment at the World Humanitarian Summit to more than double the use of cash in crises by 2025 and we're just establishing our baseline for that but that's a commitment that we have on the table thank you thank you very much Mariam to answer the question about cost efficiencies for IOM after joining the UN I can say this much more tongue in check probably just to say that we hope that the UN system will adopt some of IOM's cost efficiencies including the decentralization the travel system and everything else but we also agree with you that we have just done our commitments for the grand bargain now and the organization is going through the system of trying to look at those commitments and cost efficiencies which will be more than happy to refer to you and our members once it's complete before I conclude because our time is running out I just want to see any other panelists want to say something I have Andrula who will say something for a few minutes and I have to close because we have to go to 5 o'clock meeting as well I don't want to take too much of the microphone time just to react to some of the comments of the other panelists on the issue of technology one of the four teas that were proposed by Jamila I think in the world of humanitarian aid we have tended to underestimate the potential of technology and on how we can deliver things from things like things like cash to digital identities when we are talking about large migration flows and who are the beneficiaries registering these people quite often different international NGOs register and re-register the people so therefore rediscovering the wheel each time from things like big data analysis in the case where there is a sudden disaster being able to follow where the people go because in the most remote of areas there will be GSMs you can follow where the people are you can find out through the GSM signal where they are so an area where leapfrogging in efficiency can take place is by better use of technology the second point quickly I want to make is on the need for an accountability revolution because if we need more money and if that money is coming from taxpayers we have to be able to say where and what is the result of what we are doing and having a commonly accepted results indicators that we all refer to when we are looking at the results of projects would help would also help in simplifying also the reporting because if you know what results you want to achieve and you then you can trace the results back by saying well we did achieve those results by all the reporting needs and finally one point on the need I think collectively for us working humanitarian aid to connect all the dots by that I mean that we are very good and very fast normally in moving into a situation but we tend to forget the little important links in the chain that sometimes make a success or failure of a particular project and having that attention to those detailed important links in the chain I think is very very important and that requires a collective effort I would leave it at that thank you very short comment I think we need to take advantage of the very good knowledge the very good body of evidence that about conditional transfers that have been used in many many countries for decades now even if the settings of humanitarian aid is quite different from those transfers that are for development and in conditional transfer for either nutrition, health or others I think we need to take lessons from what we have learned in many countries around the world for this because we can push for cash transfers but there is the necessity to evaluate since the beginning very carefully what that means how is the big the impact could be in one sense of the other and particularly what means for women as you Maria mentioned because they can really promote changes even in the most precarious situations thank you very much we are coming to the close of the panel thank you Sweden for your comment really appreciate that we support and also for India just to conclude four main points for us and I'm sure with all our partners this is just a beginning of a long process today we've shown our collective commitment to the issue number three we will continue to work closely with our donors and humanitarian partners and keep our member states closely involved and we also finally hold these to the millions who depend on our assistance as well having said that I want to thank my panelists thank you very much for taking your time and joining us today thank you very much