CL179 Side Event: FAO’s 2026 Global Appeal on Emergencies and Resilience Opening Remarks

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear Colleagues,

2025 has been a year marked by unexpected pressures on agrifood systems and on the humanitarian landscape.

We continue to see severe food insecurity in regions such as the Horn of Africa and the Near East, and in countries like Sudan and Haiti, both in protracted crises and in places facing sudden shocks.

Acute food insecurity has tripled since 2016 - ten years ago - even with high levels of humanitarian funding.

The current model simply does not keep pace with today’s realities.

I wish to highlight four points that shape this Global Appeal and our approach for 2026:

First, the current system is under strain, and we cannot rely on approaches designed for a different era. I emphasized this point at the opening of the 179th Session of the Council on Monday. We need a change in our narrative.

As a biologist, I have always believed in evolution. If you want to change the world, start by changing yourself, it is the simplest and most effective approach. Instead of complaining about others, change yourself first.

Everyone has the potential to change. The one you can change with the least pain is yourself.

In many countries, food crises are lasting longer and becoming harder to reverse.

And we are often responding too late. It is a phenomenon.

Why? Why? Why? If we ask ourselves this question three times, going deeper, deeper and deeper, we can find the root cause.

First, you say ‘oh we do not have enough money’. No, the money is there, but you did not prepare to apply for the money earlier.

You say it is the bureaucracy that takes six months or even 18 months. But why did you not start 24 months earlier?

You already knew there would be a transportation strike on Friday in Italy, in Rome, yet people use it as an excuse: “I am late because of the strike”. No, you knew that. It does not happen once a year; it happens almost every week. And still, you use it as an excuse.

Many people do not think this way. If you ask donors or ask your boss, they will immediately find the root cause for you, because they are not following your path-dependency thinking.

I am not using the word mindset; it is still too early for that. I mean path-dependence thinking. Economists found that drivers are the most path-dependent people. This was in 1930's, if I am not wrong the economist who identified this received the Nobel Prize in economics.

Many people, not only humanitarian workers, but all staff, including myself, need to think differently, not just in the usual way.

Resources are stretched, and the gap between people in need and people reached remains wider.

Members have raised these concerns in many Governing Bodies’ discussions.

Sometimes, I am actually happy to see some critical Members challenging my colleagues. If they don’t challenge them, I have to step in and do it myself. So, in that sense, I am the first Director-General who welcomes people challenging my Deputy Directors-General, Assistant Directors-General, D2s, D1s, and P5 staff.

In the beginning, I remember having an Informal Consultation with North America. They came and spoke with the Directors of the Divisions. I said yes, please, ask questions, challenge them, because this is part of our improvement on internal management and governance.

Before it is too late, they can come and ask questions, even challenging ones, even not-wise ones. But this is a way to remind you to think differently, to reflect. That is why you have changed in a positive way. Some may say “He is always making trouble, asking us challenging questions.” Yes, but if they do not ask questions, it means they have forgotten you. You are no longer partners.

It is like a boyfriend and a girlfriend. They challenge each other because they want the relationship to continue. If they say goodbye and stop asking questions, it means it is over. That is what a real relationship is, being connected.

If I don’t criticize some people, it means I’m saying, “Go on by your own; I do not want to waste my time giving you the proper advice”. So, please view this in a positive way.

And, as His Holiness, Pope Leo, reminded us at the World Food Forum here, we cannot allow hunger to be viewed as someone else’s responsibility.

FAO’s mandate is to ensure humanity’s freedom from hunger, and this requires us to improve how we respond.

Second, farmers are among the most vulnerable, yet they still strive to produce food.

Farmers, herders, fishermen and women—those who sustain local agrifood systems—are deeply affected by shocks.

In some crisis-affected regions, they are working under extremely difficult conditions to keep households and markets functioning.

Young people from food-crisis settings told us at the World Food Forum: We want opportunity, not handouts.

Supporting farmers to maintain production is critical to ensure food availability.

When farmers can keep producing, communities stabilize and the path to resilience becomes real.

Third, this first Global Appeal for Emergencies and Resilience is FAO’s framework for organizing our crisis-related work.

It is a unified framework for FAO’s crisis-related work in 2026, and beyond, and brings coherence across our emergency and resilience programmes in over 50 countries.

It brings together urgent livelihood support with medium-term recovery.

And it provides our Members and donors with a clearer and more strategic picture of where needs are greatest.

Fourth, the Appeal is Member-driven, reality-driven, demand-driven and solutions-driven, but one thing is missing most of all: cost-effectiveness.

If you ask me for money, should I invest USD 1 million in FAO or in another organization? I have not yet calculated the cost‑effectiveness of money or time. At FAO I encourage all colleagues, not just the Office of Emergency and Resilience, to focus on cost‑effectiveness. At first, services may not meet expectations, but when they become cost-effective, the quality of those services improves.

First, it means responding urgently and efficiently while building close relationships. That is the biggest problem – I would say that the biggest problem of the United Nations system is lack of efficiency.

When I was responsible Vice-Minister, I did not complain, but I took a lot of notes.

FAO is neither the best nor the worst.

Otherwise give me USD 1 million or USD 10 million and after six months the seeds are still not available. What does ‘four seasons’ mean? They say, FAO has an advantage, but you have a six-month delay, then the season is over.

If other agencies say, “it will take six months to donate some food”, at least the food reaches people. With FAO, they eventually get the seeds, which are stored for the next year or next season. People are very kind, they do not complain, neither the recipients nor the donors, but I know the reality.

It reflects Members’ call for coherence, clearer prioritization, and strategies that build resilience—not dependency.

It responds to a difficult global environment, where needs remain high and resources are under pressure.

Yet only five percent of humanitarian food-sector funding supports food production.

Why? Any politician wants a quick harvest. If you are a politician, it is the same. If Deputy Director-General Beth Bechdol became Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture, it would be the same. Why?

Do not just take the explanation for granted because you have not shown your comparative advantage. Everyone knows that investing USD 1 in seeds is better than investing USD 20 in food. But there are difficulties in moving from USD 1 in seeds to USD 20 in food.

So, you should – no, we should – organize some critical thinking to make FAO more reliable, more effective. Then people will be willing to invest USD 1 here instead of USD 20 in other agencies.

Closing this gap is critical for recovery.

The Appeal directs support to practical solutions that protect livelihoods and strengthen agrifood systems.

Why does Afghanistan always get more money? Of course, we have a very good FAOR there. But the other FAORs are not bad either. Why? I think I found him to have the fast-track promotion. When he was in Yemen or Sudan, I transferred him to Afghanistan. First, he is British. Afghanistan used to be colonized by the British. Someone needs to understand not only agriculture, but also the culture and religion of the country.

Second, he can easily coordinate with partners, headquarters, and some donor countries. We make use of his advantages to fit the purpose.

Some are P5, some are D1, we pay the same salary at the same grade. But what about their function or their so-called KPI. You always talk about KPIs, but what do they really mean for a country facing so many challenges? We need deliverables. When you deliver small results, more and big results follow - of course, with support.

Agriculture offers high returns, supports local markets and reduces the need for repeated assistance.

It is also key for addressing recurrent disasters. For recurrent disasters, the only solution depends on agrifood systems, and technology.

Like typhoons in the Philippines and eastern part of China. They are not new. Every year, almost the same week, they come. That is what we call “recurrent disasters”. If disasters are recurrent, we should find a technical solution. Of course, engineering solutions are not part of FAO’s mandate, but technical solutions from FAO should be.

That is why OER is different from humanitarian aid. I know Mr Rein Paulsen has a extensive experience in the humanitarian world, but I transformed him to become a development-oriented assistant official.

Dear Colleagues,

This Global Appeal reflects the new, faster, leaner and more effective FAO.

And it focuses on the priorities of the people who work every day to sustain food production under difficult conditions.

With this unified Appeal, we can deliver more predictable, impactful and sustainable support.

This is how we move from managing hunger to reducing hunger, and ultimately to ending hunger, with passion, with patience and practical solutions.

Thank you.