The discussion revealed a familiar challenge: while localisation and innovation are widely discussed, the voices of small civil society actors remain largely unheard. When we spoke about how evidence and participation can inform humanitarian reform, the response was that there is already enough research — and that small organisations simply need to be more innovative.
Let’s make no mistake: we are not a start-up nation. Innovation matters, but it cannot replace structure, ethics, or accountability to the communities we serve. True humanitarian innovation must be holistic—rooted in best practices, informed by evidence, and aligned with international safeguarding standards. Without these anchors, innovation risks becoming a hollow buzzword.
Equally, localisation is not a slogan but a long-term transformation requiring investment, respect for local expertise, and genuine partnership. Donors and large INGOs must recognise that small, embedded organisations hold unique proximity, trust, and contextual understanding that no external framework can replicate.
What is missing in this conversation is a critical look at how research and evidence are produced. Large INGOs and universities often dominate knowledge generation—better funded, yes, but still shaped by historical power hierarchies that exclude community voices. This reinforces unequal relationships between those who research and those who are researched.
Smaller civil society organisations, by contrast, operate at the intersection of lived experience and response. Our proximity to communities enables rapid learning, adaptation, and genuine participation. Yet we continue to face barriers to funding, visibility, and recognition in research spaces. Our insights are undervalued—even though they often capture the complexity, dignity, and realities of people’s lives far more accurately than top-down studies.
To build a more equitable humanitarian evidence ecosystem, we must invest in small CSOs as legitimate knowledge producers, not merely as implementers. This means fostering equitable partnerships, shared authorship, and recognition of participatory and experiential data as valid forms of evidence.
If the humanitarian sector is serious about reform, it must start by listening to those on the ground — the people and organisations gathering data, engaging communities, and building the evidence for a more dignified and effective system.