full
105. Pivot
We are at a pivotal moment for the humanitarian sector. The freeze of US foreign aid, the dismantling of USAID and aid cuts from a number of the major donors has sent shockwaves through the system.
But how do we move forward and strike the balance between ensuring continuity of lifesaving humanitarian assistance while addressing serious and well-known issues with the existing humanitarian system – do we opt for reform or disruption?
Dominik Stillhart is the the Head of the Swiss Humanitarian Aid Unit and the Deputy Director of Swiss Development Cooperation and in this conversation with Lars Peter Nissen he speak directly to the need for changing the way we do business and finding a new way to work. The conversation was recorded on the last day of the 2025 Humanitarian Networks and Partnerships Week (HNPW) in Geneva and the sprawling ecosystem of actors at the conference serves as the point of departure for the conversation.
You can support Trumanitarian financially through a one-off or a monthly contribution on our website.
Transcript
We are at a pivotal moment for the humanitarian sector, the freeze of US foreign aid. The dismantling of USAID and budget cuts from a number of the major donors has sent shockwaves to the humanitarian system in the past weeks. Apart from the important work with ensuring the continuity of services to highly vulnerable populations, it's also important to discuss how the humanitarian sector will change. It's the grant bargain still the best framework for humanitarian reform. And are we still talking about reform or is this a write down disruption? In the conversations that I've had, I again and again have been astonished as just how much the goalpost has moved in no time at all. Today we have the most senior decision makers in the industry discussing ideas that they in no way would've taken seriously. Just a few weeks ago this week we have had the humanitarian networks and partnership week here in Geneva and I was very happy when Dominik Stillhart the head of Swiss humanitarian aid and the deputy director of the Swiss Development Corporation agreed to come to humanitarian to discuss where we are in this moment and where we are going.
As you'll hear, Dominik is not afraid to speak directly to the issues and this truly was a smart and honest conversation that I know you will enjoy when you have listened. We as always appreciated if you make some noise on social media, share the episode with friends and colleagues, give us some feedback, send it to your mom. If you would like to support the show financially, you can do it on our website through humanitarian.org, either with a one-off contribution or a monthly subscription. We greatly appreciate your contribution. It helps us to continue to produce this show and do more great episodes for you. However, as always, the most important thing is that you listen and that you enjoy the conversation. Dominic, Shar, welcome to Tru Humanitarian. Thank you Dominic. You have worked more than 30 years with ICSC and had a long career there. Ended up as director of Operations and now you are the delegate for humanitarian aid and the head of the Swiss Humanitarian Aid unit at SDC. You also the Deputy Director General of SDC. Could you unpack for us what is it actually you do in the Swiss Development Corporation and in Switzerland when it comes to humanitarian aid?
Dominik Stillhart (:I'm still figuring that out. Last Peter. Jokes aside, I think of myself really as the humanitarian director within the Swiss Development Corporation and as a humanitarian director or as a humanitarian unit within the Swiss Development Corporation. We actually have three roles. One is donor role where I as the humanitarian director am responsive for dispersing the humanitarian credit that we receive from Parliament and of course within the policy framework that the Parliament is giving us. The second role, and that is probably a little bit specific in Switzerland, is a very operational role because we have that operational arm, that Swiss humanitarian aid unit, which is a voluntary militia core of about 500 members who most of whom are working somewhere in the Swiss economy. And these are experts from various field water, sanitation, logistics protection, urban search and rescue and so on and so forth. And we can call upon them, especially for rapid response deployments.
We just spoke before about the earthquake, the potentially terrible devastating earthquake that happened this morning in Myanmar. It may well be that we will be deploying some of our experts to that earthquake to respond to that earthquake. And then we obviously also have an advocacy role. And this is perhaps more my role as the Federal Council's delegate for Humanitarian Affairs. I'm very often representing Switzerland in various conferences like the Gaza Conference at the end of last year where we are advocating for humanitarian access for better respect of international humanitarian law and so on and so forth.
Lars Peter Nissen (:It is one of the things I find really interesting about SDC and Switzerland in the humanitarian world is that you sort of bridge from the sniffer dock to the ICSC and the global platform we have here in Geneva. How do those pieces fit together on one side that extremely operational, extremely rapid hands-on deployment into the field of Swiss experts and on the other hand all of the work with the global platform IHL, the role ICSC plays in the world. Do those pieces meet somewhere?
Dominik Stillhart (:Yeah, they very much meet in my role because when I'm here at the Humanitarian Network and Partnership Week talking to all my peers, other humanitarian directors, when I talk to humanitarian organisations, some of the substance that I bring to the table is inspired by the very operational role that we have. We do have feet on the ground and we are not just talking policy in conferences. We do have feet on the ground and we try constantly to bring this field reality into our conversation. So definitely there is a very strong link there and it is again, perhaps one of the things that distinguishes Switzerland from many other donors. The fact that we do have Albe is small, but still we do have an operational arm.
Lars Peter Nissen (:I happen to totally agree with you there and I think that the humanitarian network and partnership with H and PW that we've just had this week is one of the few places where you have sort of very operational disaster management assets meet up with the traditional ISC policy world. And that tension that those two different worlds in a sense create with each other I think is extremely healthy. We've just had a new ERC come in and he asked the former ERC Jan Eland to give him some recommendations on what to do and one of them was to drop H and PW do we still need H and PW? I mean we are in a situation where we just lost almost half of the funding for humanitarian action and here we are having a party in Geneva with all friends for whole week. Is HMPW still worth it?
Dominik Stillhart (:Well look, to be very honest with you, last Peter, I have come to this humanitarian network and partnership week two years ago when I took up my new role at the Swiss Development Corporation. And having worked for 30 years in the humanitarian sector and not really knowing what this humanitarian network and partnership week was about, I kind of thought how come that I don't know this thing? And I was also a little bit sceptical about out this big meeting here with all these people sniffer dogs and firefighters in their uniforms and it's a bit of a mess, right?
Lars Peter Nissen (:The humanitarian Woodstock.
Dominik Stillhart (:Exactly, exactly. But I have to say this is now my third participation in the humanitarian network and partnership week Switzerland with without just the co-host. And the more I see it, the more I like it because it's unlike any other conference. It is a totally bottom up. It is a bottom up event. It is not a policy conference where you see people with suits except perhaps me because I'm representing Switzerland. These are more than 50 networks of practitioners who come here and organise their own thing there. I mean the only thing OCHA is doing is kind of giving them venues and time slots, but otherwise it is a self-organized bottom up conference and it has a completely different feel and look as any other conference that I know and the fact that we had, again, 8,000 registrations, 1,500 participation in Geneva more sessions than any previous year is for me a clear sign that it corresponds to a need.
And again, the fact that it is a conference of practitioners makes it extremely useful. And these people are coming because they want to be here. And therefore I really think that not just because Switzerland is co-hosting it, I do strongly believe that this is worth to keep because it offers the opportunity for people who otherwise are not coming to these conferences to meet and to discuss issues that are of their concern. They are choosing the issues. It is not some Switzerland or OCHA who are giving the teams, it is themselves who are choosing the topics.
Lars Peter Nissen (:And if we then look at this moment we're in right now, we are what a little more than a month after the dramatic shift in policy from the US that has dramatically reduced the funding available for humanitarian action that has disrupted I would say the traditional ISC humanitarian architecture. I have never experienced such a pivot. We are talking that talks about merging clusters, talking about which UN agencies should merge. NGOs are obviously looking to change the way they work. We are all scrambling to figure out what to do, what's on your mind as you leave this very vibrant ecosystem, this network of practitioners in, we have an what's on your mind in terms of humanitarian reform. You're going to a meeting on the grand parking this afternoon. I know that that's how we traditionally or for the past 10 years at least, have talked about humanitarian reform. What do we do moving forward?
Dominik Stillhart (:Well, the first thing that is on my mind is how can we now with a humanitarian sector or humanitarian system that will potentially only have half of the money that was available before and already before we were falling short of responding to the needs, how can we prevent the worst from happening for the very people affected by conflict and violence and crisis that we are trying to support? And I think that right now, right now, this should be our first concern. And in Switzerland for instance, we have made a decision rather than to we have every year it's about 30 to 40 million Swiss francs that we keep aside for two response to new emergencies. And we now decided that we we'll disperse this money or the bulk of this money early in the year to alleviate some of the consequences that we are now seeing.
And that is not going to compensate for the loss, for the loss of potentially huge US funding, but it is one step to just address the now and alleviate some of the consequences otherwise. For sure. Lars, Peter, you were also in some of these conversations, there is now a clear sense that business as usual is not an option anymore. That sense? I think that has sunk in and it has sunk in also because many organisations, they already had to take very drastic measures. I was in Cox's Bazaar I think 15 days after the announcement of the US funding freeze. And I already then you could see the consequences. Some of the NGOs, they were closing their offices 15 days after the US funding freeze. And this in the Cox Bazaar, the Rohingya refugees, this is definitely one of the populations that is largely to a very large degree dependent on humanitarian aid. So you can imagine the kind of consequences that are going to play out in a place like this. So it has sunk business as usual is not an option. I've heard many of the same ideas being rediscussed that have been around for quite some time, more locally led power shift, changing incentives within the humanitarian system, better prioritisation and so on and so forth. And I also heard some more radical ideas like merging organisations, shared services in logistics and so on and so forth.
And at the same time, my sense is that we cannot just pretend to sit and being able to redesign the whole system on a blank page. The system is kind of there. It is evolving. Many organisations are taking measures. So for me, the question that we need to ask ourselves as donors is can we agree on one or two measures that we are now taking to move the cursor in the right direction? And I'm thinking for instance, about these country-based pool funds as one of the instruments that could be reinforced in the sense that we spend more of our money into these country-based pool funds and also ask these country-based pool funds to disperse a large part if not a hundred percent of their resources for local organisations. But in a way I would like to see more radical measures, but I'm also realistic enough to see that if we need to, the question is how can we move the cursor?
Lars Peter Nissen (:And I agree with you, right, because it would be irresponsible to be disruptive of a system that serve populations as vulnerable as the Rohingya for example. So obviously there needs to be continuity, but I think if we do not also think radically in this moment, I don't think we'll ever change. And so for me, on one side, it's been very encouraging to hear how ideas that have been pedald for years and almost discarded as, yeah, that's not serious. Let's go to the kids' table and talk about that now let the grownups do business, I think are being taken more seriously this week. We have also met people from the emergency response rooms in Sudan who clearly have an alternative and scalable way of working that has to be taken seriously. That's not just small acute things that is serious work at scale in a country where the traditional system cannot really do what they're doing.
And so I think what's on my mind is if we can do just one thing, and I totally agree with you, that the pooled funds and trying to drive more resources towards local organisations is a key piece. But if I have a little prayer to all of you donors, it is let's not put all of the eggs in one basket this time. For the past 10 years, we have had a very strong focus on the grant bargain as the attempt to improve the system. And what that does is it defines the system in a very narrow way. It basically says if you're not an ISE agency, you're not really part of the humanitarian sector, you're not really part of the architecture. And I of course say that from a position of an agency that is on the fringes of this system. And I think if we can find a way of hedging our bets a little bit more and if we can find a way of telling the story about the humanitarian sector in a way that's more inclusive and it's not just about what WFP and UNHC are and IOM and the rest of the glorious big agencies, we have what they're doing, then I think there is a possibility for that network that you have seen this week at H and PW to help evolve and change the sector in a way that will drive power towards more local.
So I think that's on my mind. I don't know what it'll look like, but I hope it'll be that there'll be less concentrated in terms of power and more network centric.
Dominik Stillhart (:Yeah. Last Peter, I fully agree and that's what I also said before. I think we need radical ideas and actors who are not just putting words behind these radical ideas but deeds to see what sort of emerging, what is emerging, can we support some of these emerging new ways of responding to people's needs? And you mentioned the emergency rooms from Sudan. I had two conversations with representatives of the emergency rooms and I am also totally impressed. I'm totally impressed what they managed to stand up basically from nothing. They said we were not humanitarians, we are civil society and now they have 12,000 emergency rooms and they are at community level and they have a kind of organisation that is absolutely worth supporting. And we need to find ways to also, as donors, we need to find ways of being able to support these new ways, these different ways of delivering assistance that is closer to populations in a place where international actors, especially the more traditional ones, have huge difficulties to be anywhere close to populations.
Lars Peter Nissen (:And I think in order to do that, the key is that we then have institutions that are designed to do that. Because what happens if you try to channel that through the traditional ISC access is that everybody wants the same thing. They want, we want to do good. We want to enable and empower. But the institutional logic and the business model underpinning the current system works against that. We can see that again and again. We have an upcoming episode on two humanitarian with the emergency rooms coming out in a week or two. And basically their messages get out of the way. That's give us some money and get out of the way. That's what they're saying. And so all of our expertise and our frameworks and our capacity building and all the things we want to teach them so that they can do it right, they're basically saying get out of the way. And I don't think you can get out of the way if you sit in one of the big eight agencies. I think it runs contrary to that logic.
Dominik Stillhart (:Absolutely. And I don't want to be cynical about it. I totally agree. If you are sitting in one of these agencies and I was sitting in one of those for a very long time, it is very hard to all of a sudden do things completely differently, especially if you are asked to give up some of the power that you have and it's not coming from within these agencies. I think that is why I'm saying we need to look very carefully what is emerging and where can we so support something that may work but may also not work. But we need to test a few of those things. And I think the one of the best meetings that I had this week is with a dozen local organisation and local networks and we deliberately said, we don't want to mix them with everybody else because they also told us they wouldn't feel free to speak out, which is already a very, it's a very strong message and we need to hear that.
And what they told us, and they were from all continents, Asia, Latin America, Africa, Ukraine, and there was one message that they told us these local organisation and networks is we have capacities. We have capacities. And look what we are doing in Ukraine. Look what we are doing again in Sudan, we have capacities. What we are lacking is access to the likes of you to show what we can do and to prove that we are trustworthy. What we also need from you for sure, we need a little bit of money, but we need from you that you give us a little bit more than a three months grant or a six months grant so that we can also strengthen the capacities to fulfil some of the incredibly difficult requirements that you put on all organisations. But yes, capacities are there. And surprisingly enough, look at Sudan emergency rooms. Look at Myanmar where I was just one and a half months ago. Look at Ukraine. These are three contexts where access for many international organisations, it's so difficult that there was a shift towards local organisations. When we need it, we can do it as a system, but by default we prefer to do it ourselves. And I think that is what needs to change.
Lars Peter Nissen (:And I think it's a discussion that's as you, it's not just about resources, it's also about the way we think about what humanitarian action is, who is a humanitarian and what actually makes a difference. And I hope we can find a way of having that discussion that takes place outside an IAC policy forum because it won't happen there. So again, if we can find a way of creating a tension between the system, and I know I sound like I'm bashing the IAC, that's actually not what I'm doing. I think it's a great system that does fantastic things, but it doesn't understand what it's not. And so it needs to be surrounded by other things. And so we need to find a way of creating forum with where these conversations can happen, where we can mature that very organic way of working that's just not captured today.
Dominik Stillhart (:Exactly. And back to your question on the Humanitarian network and partnership week, again, one of the strengths that can still further be developed is the fact that you have an incredible mix. You have a mix that I don't see anywhere else. Why could I meet 10 local networks? Because they are here at the Humanitarian Network and Partnership week. And what I'm trying to do also with this humanitarian network and partnership week is I want these local organisation and no local networks not just to be here. And we give them nicely, a little bit of space. I want them to help us drive the strategic orientation of this humanitarian network and partnership week. It's really important. It's not just about inclusion, it's about giving them a real stake and tell them, help us drive, help us drive this humanitarian network and partnership, make it better, make it even more relevant for the kind of discussion that we are having now and for this humanitarian effort to generate the kind of outcomes that people affected by conflict and crisis really want and desire.
Lars Peter Nissen (:And that brings me to my final question, which is around the role of Geneva, right? Geneva is the humanitarian capital of the world or has been the home of the Geneva conventions. Most of the big players are here now. It's also a difficult place to operate. It's very expensive, right? It is dominated by the big organisations and Geneva being the platform where we can meet, where all the states can meet and discuss really difficult conflicts and all of these things. So what can you do from your side to make sure that Geneva is also the humanitarian capital of the future? Should it be, how can you make, you just spoke very powerfully about not just instrumentalizing these local actors, but actually giving real power in terms of defining the way forward as a physical location as a city. What does Geneva have to offer for the future and are you still the best platform for that?
Dominik Stillhart (:Well, Lars Peter, you're asking the wrong person. I'm now representing Switzerland and I will tell you, of course Geneva is going to remain the humanitarian capital of the world and perhaps even more so now with everything that is happening where New York is also a difficult place. So in many ways I think Geneva has a lot to offer. I know it's an expensive place, but at the same time it has a lot to offer in terms of the unique ecosystem and that unique ecosystem. Switzerland will do all it can to nurture that ecosystem. We cannot make up for the loss of contributions of us and other funding, but in terms of framework conditions, in terms of offering services as a host, state, Switzerland will continue to do everything it can. And I think the state council here in Geneva, they have put together a very generous action plan to alleviate some of the immediate consequences for some of the organisations, for some of the organisations here.
Now I also think it's not because we have been this wonderful place where everybody has discussions and is coming here that this will automatically remain in. We will have to make efforts, and one of the efforts that I definitely believe we need to make is what we are now trying with this humanitarian network and partnership week. We cannot just have those here who can afford to pay. We need to make efforts like sponsoring some of these local networks to be here and not just to participate in a tokenistic way, but to help us drive some of these conversations that we are having right now about the future of humanitarianism.
Lars Peter Nissen (:I sometimes think that the opportunity, if you want in this situation is to make the spirit of Geneva travel. I think there's some really unique things about Geneva. I've lived here for 15 years now, and you really see what is special about the way we engage on the humanitarian scene here. At the same time, it's clear that when covid hit that really changed things and you don't have the same intensity of meeting people. It's gone down. You feel that very clearly, and I think this second shock with the funding decline is also going to change things. There was a lot of talk before the HMPW this year about whether people would come at all. I think we had a lot of people come. I think there was a real need to meet and talk and figure out what's happening, but I also sometimes think that maybe the opportunity is to make that spirit of Geneva travel to other locations, to maybe have an h and PW in, I don't know, Nairobi and Mann in wherever in some of the other hubs we have in the world, and maybe finding ways of breaking down the physical barriers that are in terms of coming to Switzerland.
Dominik Stillhart (:Yeah, it's interesting that you are mentioning this idea of Geneva travelling because we are obviously also having conversations about the future of this humanitarian network and partnership week. And one of the ideas is indeed could or should we have it perhaps every second year in a different place. And that is precisely the conversation that we would like to have with those who are perhaps most interested or affected by such a system. Again, I don't want for us, a few people like OCHA and me, we are saying now we are doing it once in Nairobi. I think we need to have that conversation with the very people who may wish to have it in different places or perhaps their preference is also here in Geneva. I want to listen, I want to hear what people have to say, but the spirit of Geneva, this very open platform where people can come, have conversations in an open, transparent, and safe Safeway. I think that is really a spirit that we can definitely also bring to other places. And at the same time, I do believe that this Geneva remains a place where diplomacy, humanitarian, academia, private sector, you have an incredible ecosystem here that will continue to add a lot of value to humanitarian action also in the future.
Lars Peter Nissen (:Dominic, thank you so much for coming on to humanitarian and thank you for the role you play in the sector. I really enjoy these exchanges that we have and I hope there will be a way forward that creates that more inclusive, more effective humanitarian sector that I think we all want.
Dominik Stillhart (:Thank you. Last Peter. Thank you for having me.
