One Truth: Humanitarian Action Must Evolve
My last field assignment includes memories of our national team members—who form the backbone of humanitarian operations—struggle to keep pace with rising demands. They were stretched thin across multiple fronts: responding to growing beneficiary needs, drafting and revising reports and proposals, navigating complex compliance requirements, and managing safeguarding alerts. As a long-term humanitarian aid worker balancing programs, paperwork, and people, I’ve come to realize that our greatest bottleneck is no longer funding. It is the way we build and sustain human capacity within organizations, strengthen policy frameworks, and cultivate institutional agility—especially now, under the revised Core Humanitarian Standards (CHS 2024) and the accelerating pressures of emerging technologies. In fact, a critical shift is underway in the humanitarian sector: the primary constraint on our effectiveness is evolving from financial limitations to foundational capacity gaps. This was starkly evident in the field, where our national colleagues were increasingly overwhelmed—not due to lack of commitment, but due to systemic constraints that hinder their ability to respond effectively. This experience crystallized a vital insight: to meet our mandates in today’s complex humanitarian landscape, we must pivot our strategic focus. The urgent priorities are now threefold: Invest in human capability and expertise at all levels of the system. Strengthen policy and procedural frameworks to offer clear, actionable guidance. Foster institutional agility to adapt to evolving standards and technological change. This strategic realignment is not optional—it is essential. Only by addressing these capacity gaps can we uphold the heightened accountability embedded in CHS 2024 and harness the potential of emerging technologies to improve humanitarian outcomes. Why does this matter now? Earlier last year, the humanitarian sector, after global consultations with more than 4,000 contributors across 90+ countries, rolled out the Core Humanitarian Standards 2024, an updated version of the previous Standards. This revision simplifies language, strengthens commitments to local leadership, and refocuses on accountability to affected people[1]. Simultaneously, in the field, many of us are already using AI tools (for data summarization, translations, and other analysis), yet fewer than one in four organizations have formal AI policies or training in place[2]. This mismatch creates real risks: from privacy and bias to compliance gaps. Meanwhile, localization is still stuck between ambition and practice: local NGOs routinely face staff retention issues, limited core support, burdensome partner vetting, and local lack of power in decision‑making[3]. The same capacity gaps that hinder local partners also afflict many INGOs in newer contexts[4]. The Organizational Capacity Challenges in 2025 Human Capacity & Retention Short‑term project funding remains dominant among humanitarian interventions around the world. Local staff are often underpaid compared to international counterparts. When they gain experience, they are headhunted by larger agencies leaving the parent organizations vulnerable. This way institutional memory is lost forever. Staff burnout is high; field teams juggle response shocks, reporting spikes, and emotional stress with little protective infrastructure. Humanitarian aid workers are exposed to a range of stressors and traumatic events whilst providing aid in humanitarian emergencies, and this can result in the exacerbation of pre-existing mental ill-health and/or the development of new mental ill-health including psychological distress, burnout, anxiety, depression, and PSTD. According to Plus One, nine studies[5] were conducted including a total of 3619 participants. The report shows that psychological distress among humanitarian aid workers can affect up to 52.8%, burnout varies up to 32%, anxiety varies up to 38.5%, depression varies up to 39% and post traumatic stress disorder varies up to 25%. These types of mental illnesses are common among humanitarian aid workers, creating negative impacts on personal wellbeing and heavily reducing the efficiency of the humanitarian aid organizations. Conversely, a contrasting view persists, often from headquarters or leadership, that this intense pressure is an inherent part of the job while asking, “Isn’t this what they signed up for, and should we really expect anything less?.” Skills for New Realities The humanitarian sector has entered a new age of data and AI, but our institutions’ skills are still catching up. For a long time, humanitarian organizations thought that managing programs and following donor rules were the most important skills for professionals. Those are still important, but the unique environment needs a wider, more flexible skill set. Teams today need to know not only how to help respond quickly, but also how to handle data in a responsible manner, use AI tools in an ethicalway, and use mutual-learning systems that connect evidence and community feedback. The capacity gaps are becoming more obvious in everyday work. For example when program officers use ChatGPT for reports or MEAL dashboards, finance teams automate data entry, or local partners use WhatsApp groups to get feedback, often without any rules from the organization about data privacy, algorithmic bias, or consent. Only about 22%[6] of organizations have AI policies in place, while 70% of staff report daily or weekly AI usage. The sector risks a “tech wildcard” where staff adopt tools ad hoc, but without guardrails. Policy & framework gaps Think of the new humanitarian standards as a massive, long-overdue “organizational decluttering”. Right now, our internal systems are like a junk drawer stuffed with separate, overlapping policies for feedback, safety, and monitoring. It’s confusing for our staff and frustrating for the communities we serve, who just want a simple, safe way to be heard. The new rules are essentially telling us it’s time to merge all these scattered procedures into a one coherent, and user-friendly system which can be owned by everyone. Imagine the ease if we replace a dozen different, complicated remote controls with a single, universal one. For a household in a crisis, this means a straightforward, single door to knock on with their concerns or suggestions. For our frontline teams, it means far less time to spend juggling different policies and filing reports, and more time helping program participants. The ultimate payoff of this approach is that we will become more efficient, transparent, and trustworthy organization, which is better for everyone we serve and everyone who supports our work. What we propose: a 90‑Day Field‑Driven Playbook
The Humanitarian Strategic Position and the Need for Localization
In recent years, the contemporary global landscape and the escalating impact of climate change has exacerbated humanitarian crises across the globe, particularly in vulnerable regions such as Africa and the Middle East. As environmental disasters, resource scarcity, and displacements due to ongoing conflicts become more frequent, there is an urgent need to reassess the strategic position of humanitarian support. Central to this reassessment is the concept of localization—empowering local actors to take the lead in humanitarian responses. This approach not only ensures more effective and culturally sensitive interventions but also builds resilience within communities, enabling them to better cope with future crises and gain the program’s ownership tailored to their needs. The deteriorating global situation in recent years — the frightening armed conflicts in Sudan, Ukraine and far too many competing horrors elsewhere, climate change spiraling into uncontrollable territory parallel to human unbridled senselessness, or vicious wildfires consuming forests and arable lands, are creating an incubator for humanitarian crises everywhere on this planet but particularly across Africa/Middle East/Southeast Asia. Given more frequent environmental disasters and growing resource scarcity and displacements due to ongoing conflicts, a strategic evaluation of the position humanitarian support is urgently needed. At the heart of this rethinking is localization: putting local actors at the center of humanitarian responses. This will result in a more efficient and culturally aware, or in humanitarian language, bottom-up approach, while at the same time strengthening communities to withstand future shocks along with acquiring community driven programs based on their demands. The Current Humanitarian Landscape The humanitarian operating environment is changing, fueled by conflicts and the harsh effects of climate change in Africa, Middle East and elsewhere. The challenges and opportunities in each region are unique. These responses can only be tailor-made to the continent with problems like drought, armed conflicts among others and health epidemics such as Ebola or even COVID-19 currently on-going. Millions of people are losing their crops and wells not only because of longer draughts, but also due to the irregular rainfall patterns. There are conflicts and refugee crises still going on in the Middle East and Africa; political unrest too. In addition, the Middle East sees rising temperatures and water scarcity to make it further difficult for citizens of countries living with existing problems such as socio-political tensions leading to mass displacement. Conflicts and climate change affect communities in a different way than traditional support mechanisms address, as humanitarian actions frequently provide top-down responses. These approaches may be slow to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances or miss the local nuances and capacities. As a result, there is increasing consensus of the demand for locally-led approaches that elevate and empower local communities and local organisations to lead. During my 26 years in humanitarian sector, the matter of localization has shifted from priority to capacity building to ensure localization during 2000s, to fading due to more complex conflicts during the 2010s, and again brought back to the agenda during 2020s. It is considered that one of the factors to impact this shift is the generational change among humanitarian workers around the globe. The Need for Localization Humanitarian aid localization requires re-equalization of power and resources with actors at the local level, including governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and community-based groups. This shift is essential for a number of reasons: Local Contextual Sensitivity: Local champions deeply know their local dynamics including cultural, social and economic drivers. In turn, they are able to design and implement more appropriate acceptable interventions that could better resonate with the cultural practices of local people. Cultural relevance and acceptance: Local actors understand the cultural mores, tones of their communities more thoroughly. This allows them to build and reinforce culturally-appropriate interventions, to ensure more acceptance from local communities Local Capability to Rapidly Respond: Local agencies might be nimbler and faster in their response time ability. Their proximity to affected areas allows for immediate action, which is crucial in the context of climate-induced disasters where time is of the essence. Cost-Effectiveness: Utilizing local resources and expertise can be more cost-effective than relying on international aid agencies. This allows for more funds to be directed towards direct assistance rather than overhead costs associated with international operations. Building Local Capacity: Investing in local actors to build their capacities and equip with skills for more effective and sustainable crisis response. This not only enhances immediate response but also reinforces long-term resilience and external-dependence reduction. Sustainability and Ownership: Local ownership is the ultimate principle that underwrites localization as it promotes a sense of responsibility and acceptance on communities. When decisions are made by local actors they have more of an incentive to insure that the project is successful and remains functioning over time. Involving communities in these processes makes them such stakeholders who would continue supporting projects long after NGOs packed their bags. This is particularly important for initiatives aimed at mitigating and adapting to climate change, which require ongoing efforts. Cost-Effectiveness: Utilizing local resources and expertise is more cost-effective than relying on international aid agencies. This allows for more funds to be directed towards direct assistance rather than overhead costs associated with international operations. However this has a long way ahead for the international stakeholders to accept as granted. Best Practices: Localization in Action In Africa, several initiatives demonstrate the benefits of localization. In Kenya, for example, the local NGOs has effectively utilized its local networks to implement drought response programs that incorporate traditional knowledge and practices. These programs have not only provided immediate relief but also promoted sustainable water management and agricultural practices. In the Middle East, the Syrian crisis has highlighted the importance of local actors in humanitarian response. Local NGOs and community groups have played a crucial role in delivering aid and services in hard-to-reach areas, often at great personal risk. Their efforts have been instrumental in addressing the needs of displaced populations and building community resilience. The crisis in Syria demonstrates the essential role of local actors in humanitarian response, also elsewhere where international engagement is
