MAY 3

When listening shifts what we ask for - With Marina Navarro

Marina Navarro’s moment does not centre on a single event, but on a pattern that repeated itself across her career. With over two decades of experience in development and human rights, Marina Navarro has held leadership roles across the United Nations and civil society, including leading Amnesty International Perú, coordinating the UN Millennium Campaign in Spain and working with organisations such as Peace Brigades International Colombia and InteRed. She has also volunteered and worked with grassroots organisations in Colombia, Peru and Spain. The first moment took place early on, when she was working with a grassroots organisation of working children in Colombia. At a public hearing, an eleven-year-old girl named Angie stood up and addressed the room. Adults were debating policies to eliminate child labour. Angie interrupted them with a simple question: if she stopped working, who would support her family? What struck Marina was not only what Angie said, but what it revealed. Decisions were being made about children without listening to them. The policies, though well-intentioned, were based on assumptions that did not hold in the reality those children lived. Years later, in a very different context in Peru, Marina encountered a similar moment. Meeting with families who had lost relatives during protests, she spoke with Señora Celia, a Quechua-speaking mother whose son had been killed. Amnesty International came with proposals that felt responsible and achievable: reparations, public apologies, institutional recognition. Señora Celia rejected them. She did not want charity. She did not want apologies. She wanted justice. She wanted those responsible to be held accountable. Again, the gap became visible. What institutions considered reasonable did not match what those affected experienced as right. Across both moments, the assumption that organisations know what should be done quietly collapsed. What followed was not a better technical solution, but a shift in understanding. Listening was no longer a step in the process. It became the basis for defining the problem itself. In Marina’s work, this has shaped how campaigns are designed and led. Right holders are not only consulted, but involved in defining messages, priorities, and demands. External expertise still plays a role, but it is no longer treated as the primary source of knowledge. The most relevant knowledge is held by those who live the reality the intervention seeks to change. Her moment points to a recurring tension in humanitarian and development work. Interventions are often built on assumptions about what people need, what is feasible, and what constitutes a reasonable outcome. But when those assumptions are not grounded in lived experience, even well-designed actions can miss their mark. Listening, in this sense, is not about inclusion alone. It is about alignment. When people are not heard, we risk solving the wrong problem. When they are, the terms of action change. Marina’s moment shows that responsible leadership begins not with deciding what is possible, but with understanding what matters to those affected, even when it challenges what institutions are prepared to offer.

11 min

APR 18 · BONUS

When patterns begin to emerge - Season 1 Wrap-Up

This episode marks the close of the first season of Moments that Matter. What began as a simple idea—to capture the key moments that shaped experienced practitioners—gradually revealed something deeper. Across ten interviews, a pattern started to emerge. Each story pointed to a moment when something long relied upon no longer fully held. An assumption broke down. A way of seeing no longer made sense. And in that moment, understanding shifted. In this solo episode, Joachim reflects on that journey. Joachim Ramakers has over two decades of experience in humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding contexts, working with organisations such as the United Nations Development Programme and the Netherlands Red Cross. His work has focused on crisis prevention, early recovery, and strengthening the quality and credibility of programmes in complex environments. Looking back across the interviews, he introduces a working definition: A moment that matters is a moment when an assumption breaks down and forces a rethink of how to act. This insight became more than a reflection tool. It evolved into a practical question: If these moments reveal deep insight from experienced practitioners, what might we learn by asking similar questions to the people our work is meant to serve? This question led to the idea of Responsible Recalibration. Projects are built on assumptions about what creates change. But when those assumptions meet lived experience, they do not always hold. Responsible Recalibration offers a structured way to listen, compare, and adjust—grounding decisions in reality and returning to communities to validate what has been understood. In this episode, Joachim reflects on how this approach could: Strengthen alignment between projects and lived realityImprove the credibility of interventionsBuild trust through visible responsivenessGive communities a meaningful role in shaping change The next step is a pilot in Sudan, exploring whether this way of listening can move from reflection to practice. What started as a series of conversations may become something more: a different way of understanding, and acting, when what we know no longer holds.

7 min

APR 5

When neutrality and distance stop holding - with Marie-Odile Zanders

Marie-Odile Zanders: When neutrality and distance stop holding Marie-Odile’s moment did not come from a programme decision or a leadership role, but from living through violence as a minority in a place she had come to see as home. While working in Gujarat, India, she experienced the inter-communal violence of 2002 at close range. What changed her perspective was not only the scale of the violence, but the lived experience of fear, misinformation, and exclusion. For the first time, she became acutely aware of what it means to be visibly outside the dominant groups in a deeply polarised context. This was not an abstract insight. It was a question of personal safety. She describes a moment where she seriously considered whether she needed a weapon to protect herself, and then realised that leaving the country was the only real option available to her. That realisation exposed an assumption she had previously carried without questioning it: that one can remain professionally committed, analytically neutral, and personally insulated at the same time. The violence made clear that this distance was fragile and unevenly distributed. As a European professional, she had an exit option. Many of the people she worked with did not. What followed was not a new theory, but a shift in how she understood inclusion, safety, and responsibility. Concepts she had known intellectually took on a different weight once experienced bodily and emotionally. Inclusion was no longer only about access to services or participation in programmes. It became about what it means to live without a guaranteed way out, and how profoundly that shapes people’s choices, risks, and vulnerabilities. This moment redirected her professional focus. Housing, safety, and inclusion became central, not as technical domains, but as conditions that enable people to live without constant fear or exclusion. Her later work on housing finance and inclusion reflects this recalibration. The emphasis is less on solutions designed at a distance, and more on addressing the structural conditions that make some lives inherently more precarious than others. Marie-Odile’s moment illustrates how assumptions about neutrality, privilege, and professional distance can quietly guide action until they no longer hold. When those assumptions fall away, what changes is not certainty about what to do next, but a clearer sense of what it would mean to act in ways that are credible and right to those who live with the consequences.

9 min

MAR 22

When a Solution Does Not Yet Exist - With Besim Nebiu

Besim Nebiu – When a Solution Does Not Yet Exist Besim Nebiu had been working on housing renovation projects for years. Like many in the sector, he was used to operating through proposals, technical standards, and policy language. When considering the renovation of ageing apartment blocks in Skopje, the logic was clear: improve insulation, increase energy efficiency, reduce consumption and costs over time. These were sound solutions, supported by data and funding. The moment that changed how he thought about this work occurred during a routine attempt to engage residents. Rather than working through a municipality or intermediary organisation, Besim decided to identify a local leader by speaking directly with tenants. He began ringing doorbells in several similar apartment blocks built in the 1950s. His initial conversations followed the familiar script: façade renovation, insulation improvements, energy efficiency gains. People were polite but unconvinced. The project did not resonate in the way he had expected. At one apartment, an elderly woman opened the door. Instead of continuing with the technical explanation, Besim asked whether her apartment was warm enough in winter. She explained that she could afford to heat only one room, as her monthly electricity budget was fixed and limited. The rest of the apartment remained unheated. That exchange reframed the problem. The issue was no longer energy efficiency as an abstract objective, but whether someone could live comfortably in their own home. When Besim described the renovation in terms of enabling her to heat two rooms instead of one, without increasing her energy bill, the proposal became immediately understandable. She recognised what was being offered and why it mattered. She subsequently spoke with her neighbours, helped organise the building, and played a central role in moving the project forward. What changed in that moment was not the technical solution itself, but the way it was understood. The project had been technically viable before, but it had not yet existed in terms that residents could recognise as relevant to their lives. For Besim, this experience highlighted a gap he had previously taken for granted: that a well-designed solution would be self-evident. He began to see that if people do not recognise themselves in the way a solution is described, the solution does not yet exist in practice — regardless of its technical merits. This insight influenced his subsequent work. He became more attentive to how problems were framed, whose language was used, and where legitimacy actually emerged. He also observed that leadership in such processes did not necessarily come from formal authority or expertise, but from those able to translate solutions into terms grounded in lived reality. Action remained possible after this realisation. But it required a different approach: one that treated understanding not as a given outcome of analysis, but as something that had to be established through language, recognition, and trust. Credibility, he learned, was not something to be assumed — it had to be built in terms that made sense to the people who would live with the consequences.

14 min

MAR 7

When skills are not enough - With Enock Nsubuga

Enock’s moment does not arrive as a single dramatic event, but as a growing unease with something he initially took for granted. Enock Nsubuga is Partnerships Coordinator at MasterPeace Uganda and Co-founder of Job Launchpad Uganda. He supports unemployed and underemployed youth with practical skills, mentorship, and career pathways. His work focuses on bridging the gap between learning and earning through scalable solutions. He is passionate about empowering young people to achieve financial stability and create impact. Early in his work with MasterPeace Uganda, Enock believed that youth unemployment could be addressed primarily through training. If young people were equipped with the right skills, employability would follow. This assumption was reinforced by funding structures, programme designs, and widely accepted development logic. Skills were the answer. Training was the intervention. The moment that changed his perspective came after delivering high-quality training and then watching what happened next. Nothing. Young people completed programmes, gained certificates, and still remained excluded from work. What emerged was what Enock describes as the “then what?” gap. The problem was not a lack of effort, motivation, or ability on the part of participants. It was that the pathway assumed by the programme did not exist in their lived reality. This was not simply an implementation flaw. It was a deeper realisation that employability could not be reduced to individual readiness. Access, networks, confidence, guidance, and real opportunities mattered just as much. Most importantly, Enock recognised that young people themselves already understood this. They knew what was missing, because they were living it. What shifted was Enock’s understanding of responsibility. Helping no longer meant preparing young people to fit an abstract labour market. It meant recognising how exclusion actually operates, and adjusting the intervention accordingly. Credible action required staying with the problem after training ended, rather than assuming that skills alone would carry people forward. This insight led to the creation of the Job Launchpad. Not as a technical innovation, but as a response to a failed assumption. The platform was designed to do what previous programmes implicitly assumed would happen on their own: connect people to real opportunities, provide guidance, build confidence through proximity to work, and make transitions visible and supported. What makes Enock’s moment distinctive is that legitimacy does not come from expertise or distance, but from shared experience. He speaks the language of the young people he works with because he has navigated the same uncertainty. Like the elderly woman in Besim’s story, credibility emerges not from authority, but from recognition. Enock’s moment shows that acting responsibly sometimes means accepting that a well-intended solution does not exist yet. Understanding changes not what one wants to do, but what it means to help in a way that remains believable to those who must live with the outcome.

12 min

FEB 27

When listening itself carries risk - With Philippe Stoll

Philippe’s moment begins with a sense of possibility. Philippe Stoll is an independent expert working at the intersection of technology and war, focusing on harmful information. Until January 2026, he served as Techplomacy and Conflict expert at the International Committee of the Red Cross, engaging with governments, academia, humanitarian organisations and the tech sector to better protect conflict affected people from the impacts of AI and cyber warfare. In the early 2010s, discussions around accountability to affected populations were gaining momentum. At the same time, social media platforms were spreading beyond the West. For Philippe and others working on accountability, this convergence felt promising. Technology appeared to offer a way to rebalance power, to create more direct forms of engagement, and to give people affected by conflict and crisis a stronger voice. The idea was simple and compelling. If people could speak more directly to humanitarian organisations, programmes would become more responsive. Listening would become easier. Participation would increase. What Philippe and his colleagues encountered, however, was that listening was not a neutral act. As engagement through digital platforms expanded, so did the risks that came with it. People were being asked to speak in spaces they did not control, through technologies they did not own, and in contexts where the consequences of being visible were unevenly distributed. Issues of privacy, data protection, surveillance, and unintended exposure came into view, often faster than humanitarian organisations were equipped to understand them. The shift for Philippe came when it became clear that good intentions were not enough. Creating channels for participation without understanding the full chain of consequences could place people at risk, even when the aim was inclusion and accountability. Listening, in this context, was not simply about openness or responsiveness. It required a deeper understanding of how data moves, how information can be used, and how vulnerability changes the meaning of consent. What felt empowering from a distance could feel coercive or dangerous on the ground. This realisation changed how Philippe approached technology in humanitarian action. Rather than asking how quickly new tools could be deployed, the question became whether their risks were understood well enough to justify their use at all. Efficiency and innovation no longer stood on their own. They had to be weighed against severity of harm, likelihood of misuse, and the asymmetry of power between institutions and the people they serve. In response, Philippe helped initiate work that brought technologists, ethicists, legal experts, and humanitarian practitioners into the same conversation. Policies such as Do No Digital Harm and later the ICRC’s AI framework emerged from this approach, not as abstract principles, but as attempts to slow down decision making in situations where speed itself could create harm. Philippe’s moment is not about rejecting technology or participation. It is about recognising that accountability cannot be reduced to mechanisms for listening. Without understanding the consequences of being heard, listening can become another way of shifting risk onto those least able to absorb it. In this sense, understanding did not make decisions easier. It made them heavier. It changed what responsible action looks like when innovation, speed, and inclusion collide with the realities of power and vulnerability.

13 min

FEB 13

When communication becomes responsibility - With Arvind Kumar

Arvind Kumar – When communication becomes responsibility Early in his career, Arvind Kumar struggled with language. Moving from a small town to a larger professional setting, he realised how much influence communication carries — not only as a technical skill, but as access to opportunity and confidence. An army officer once told him: fear remains until you face it. For Arvind, that meant learning to speak, to listen, and to bridge differences across cultures and contexts. Later, working in frontline humanitarian settings, another moment deepened that insight. In an IDP camp, he met an eleven-year-old girl caring for her siblings while continuing her schooling. Her resilience reframed his own sense of challenge. Problems could be faced differently. Perspective mattered. A third experience came while supporting women-led solar initiatives in Yemen. Innovation succeeded not because it was well designed on paper, but because communication created trust and ownership across humanitarian and development actors. In this episode, Arvind reflects on how communication is not simply about conveying information. It is about connecting community realities to institutional decision-making, and bridging humanitarian and development approaches in fragile settings. When language fails to translate lived experience into institutional action, trust weakens. Arvind’s moment shows how responsibility grows when communication becomes a form of accountability.

14 min

FEB 6

When what seemed unthinkable becomes real - with Lucija Popovska

Lucija Popovska – When what seemed unthinkable becomes real Lucija Popovska works at the intersection of international development and technology, focusing on financial inclusion and housing solutions for underserved communities. Growing up in Yugoslavia, Lucija Popovska did not believe the country could fall apart in the way it eventually did. Political tensions were visible, but they felt distant. The foundations of shared life — rights, norms, coexistence — were assumed to hold. That assumption collapsed when violence became real. Working at the border between Kosovo and North Macedonia during mass displacement, Lucija witnessed hundreds of thousands of people stranded between states. Governments debated procedures while families stood without shelter, sanitation, or safety. Systems that were meant to protect people proved fragile under pressure. What struck her was not only the scale of suffering, but how quickly what seemed stable could unravel. Years later, in a very different setting in Lesotho, another moment stayed with her. In a village marked by loss and hardship, she sat with children who began playing with her long hair, laughing and inventing games. Amid vulnerability and uncertainty, a simple human connection persisted. In this episode, Lucija reflects on how witnessing both collapse and humanity reshaped her understanding of responsibility. When values we assume to be stable prove vulnerable, leadership shifts from implementing solutions to defending the conditions that make shared life possible. Lucija’s moment shows that responsibility begins with vigilance — and with recognising how easily exclusion can become normalised if left unchallenged. About the guest Lucija built her career at the intersection of international development and technology, focusing on the financial inclusion of underserved communities. Partnering with vast network of stakeholders, she created systemic solutions across EMEA and Central Asia. Her work enabled access to housing and financial services to millions. She managed diverse teams in the private and NGO sectors in 6 countries. Lucija holds an MBA and training in housing finance and microfinance.

15 min

JAN 30

When creating space becomes the responsible act - with Luis Francisco Thais

Luis Francisco Thais – When creating space becomes the responsible act Over the course of his career, Luis Francisco Thais noticed a recurring pattern. Capable and motivated people often had ideas, energy, and solutions of their own. Yet institutional processes, even when well-intentioned, sometimes left little room for those voices to shape outcomes. What shifted for him was not his commitment to development, but his understanding of responsibility within it. Acting responsibly no longer meant primarily designing stronger interventions or moving more efficiently. It meant paying attention to when action begins to crowd out agency rather than enable it. This did not imply stepping back from structural work. Barriers to education, health, and basic services remain real and demand active engagement. But once those conditions are in place, responsibility changes. Leadership becomes less about steering results and more about creating space for others to define and pursue them. In this episode, Luis reflects on how creating space — internally within teams and externally within communities — reshaped his approach to leadership. When institutional action begins to replace rather than release local agency, legitimacy thins. Luis’ moment shows how responsibility shifts from directing outcomes to enabling others to own them.

14 min

JAN 19

When institutional promises meet their limits - with Devanand Ramiah

Devanand Ramiah – When institutional promises meet their limits As a young UN volunteer in Timor-Leste, Devanand Ramiah stood before communities preparing for a referendum and reassured them that the United Nations would remain present to protect them. When violence erupted, international staff were evacuated. The promise, though institutionally made and sincerely conveyed, could not be kept. That moment stayed with him. It reshaped how he understood responsibility, trust, and the weight of representing an institution in fragile contexts. Later in his career, another influence reinforced this shift. Working with a senior leader who modelled empathy and accountability, Devanand saw that authority is not only about mandate, but about how one carries responsibility toward others. In this episode, he reflects on what it means to lead when institutional commitments meet uncertain realities. When institutions cannot fully shield those they serve, credibility rests not on certainty, but on how leaders respond after trust is tested. Devanand’s moment shows how responsibility deepens when promises prove fragile.

9 min

JAN 10

When preparedness becomes a responsibility, not an afterthought - with Armen Grigoryan

Armen Grigoryan – When preparedness becomes a responsibility, not an afterthought Armen Grigoryan, currently UNDP Resident Representative in North Macedonia, traces his commitment to disaster preparedness back to a defining moment. As a young volunteer during the 1988 earthquake in Armenia, he witnessed something that stayed with him. International assistance arrived, but it was uneven and poorly coordinated. Local systems were overwhelmed. Even foreign aid, though well intentioned, was not organised to meet the scale of the disaster. What struck him was not only the devastation, but the lack of preparedness at every level. That experience reshaped his career. Armen went on to study disaster management and conflict resolution and spent decades working to strengthen national systems for crisis response. In this episode, he reflects on how early exposure to uncoordinated aid changed his understanding of responsibility in fragile contexts. When crisis response depends on improvisation rather than preparedness, the cost is paid by those already affected. Armen’s moment shows what happens when readiness becomes an ethical obligation rather than a technical afterthought. About the guest Armen Grigoryan has served as UNDP Resident Representative in North Macedonia since October 2021. Previously he was Regional Cluster Leader for Climate Change and Disaster Resilience and Global Energy Policy Advisor at UNDP’s Istanbul Regional Hub. Over his career he has held roles with UNDP in New York, Geneva, Armenia, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, focusing on disaster risk reduction, crisis recovery and resilience. He has also worked with the World Bank, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Peace Corps.

7 min

JAN 10

When “how” becomes as important as “what” - with Jan Thomas Hiemstra

Jan Thomas Hiemstra – When “how” becomes as important as “what”. Early in his career at UNDP, Jan Thomas Hiemstra noticed something uncomfortable. In crisis settings, the organisation was strong on designing programmes. The “what” was clear. Employment schemes, reconstruction plans, recovery frameworks. But when it came to implementation, the “how” often fell short. Country offices were expected to deliver in fragile environments without the systems, surge capacity, or operational support to do so. What began as a small internal observation became a defining shift in his career. Jan Thomas realised that credibility in crisis work does not rest on good ideas alone, but on the ability to deliver them reliably. In this episode, he reflects on how focusing on the “how” reshaped his understanding of responsibility, legitimacy, and impact. When strong intentions are not matched by operational readiness, trust erodes quietly. Jan Thomas’ moment shows what happens when preparedness becomes a responsibility rather than an afterthought.

9 min

Moments that Matter

Episodes

When listening shifts what we ask for - With Marina Navarro

When patterns begin to emerge - Season 1 Wrap-Up

When neutrality and distance stop holding - with Marie-Odile Zanders

When a Solution Does Not Yet Exist - With Besim Nebiu

When skills are not enough - With Enock Nsubuga

When listening itself carries risk - With Philippe Stoll

When communication becomes responsibility - With Arvind Kumar

When what seemed unthinkable becomes real - with Lucija Popovska

When creating space becomes the responsible act - with Luis Francisco Thais

When institutional promises meet their limits - with Devanand Ramiah

When preparedness becomes a responsibility, not an afterthought - with Armen Grigoryan

When “how” becomes as important as “what” - with Jan Thomas Hiemstra

About

Information