Absolutely, and thank you for the question.
From the start, I will say that I can't lay claim to being a doctor, but thank you all the same.
MSF is an organization that by and large does not rely on institutional funding from governments around the world, although we do have a relationship with the Government of Canada. Almost the entirety of our funding is privately delivered, and this has allowed us to have flexibility in our ability to respond. However, we are just one small part of the response, no matter how that gets determined, so the question here is how that flexibility is built. That is an essential.... I'm very glad you've raised this point, because that absolutely needs to be built into how humanitarian assistance funding is determined.
Without that flexibility, we run into the exact same situation that you've described. Needs change, because these are all very dynamic contexts that are affected by any number of different factors, and if we maintain the traditional approach of long-term static funding allocations that's been in place, it does not set up agencies to be nimble and respond. Now more than ever, when we are looking at reduced resources and a reduced ability to respond, it is absolutely essential that the agencies that depend on governments for their funding have flexibility built in so that they can pivot to these needs.
It's a fundamental need. It is something that we have seen for a very long time from our perspective, because we try to emphasize this flexibility. However, when it comes to long-term institutional funding, this is a change that needs to happen.