Catch up with CDAC Network at Humanitarian Networks & Partnerships Week 2025
We were pleased to see so many of our members representing the network in person and remotely at HNPW - promoting the importance of communication, information, accountability and participation across the board. Key issues that are more important now than ever with the current circumstances.
CDAC held four panel discussions, as well as a side event co-hosted by UK and Switzerland. Find out more about the events below and follow the links for videos or podcasts of the live recordings.
Community-centered innovation: Shifting power and perspectives on community engagement in aid
This panel explored how to ensure innovations genuinely shift power to crisis-affected populations amid changing funding landscapes. Key takeaways from the discussion were:
While humanitarian organisations have become proficient at collecting feedback from crisis-affected communities, there remains a significant gap in acting upon this feedback and truly shifting power to communities in program design and decision-making. Upinion and Talk to Loop showcased concrete examples of technological approaches that center community voices.
In the current humanitarian funding crisis, there is both risk and opportunity: risk that power holders will further entrench their interests, and opportunity for radical transformation toward community-led humanitarian response. Ground Truth Solutions shared data and analysis from 34,000 interviews across 12 countries, with recommendations humanitarian reform based directly on community feedback.
Technological innovation should be approached as a tool to enhance human connections rather than replace them, with careful consideration of inclusion, language barriers, and contextual appropriateness. CLEAR Global shared how language inclusion in humanitarian response is critical, identifying how language barriers compound other exclusionary factors like gender, age, and disability. Quito Tsui reminded the audience that we should be “willing not to use tech! And really have this on the table in a sincere way. It’s easy to use the shiniest tool; be we need to be more aware about the cost of using these tech tools.”
Local Lifelines: Information and power sharing between big and little aid in the Sudan response
This panel discussed how information flows between different levels of humanitarian response in Sudan, and practical challenges & solutions in information and power. Key points from the discussion were:
The panel established that while local actors (Emergency Response Rooms, diaspora organisations, and national NGOs) are at the forefront of humanitarian response in Sudan, they remain largely excluded from decision-making processes, funding mechanisms, and formal coordination structures within the international aid system.
There are significant challenges in information sharing between local and international actors, including safety concerns for local responders, language barriers, misaligned reporting requirements, extractive data collection practices, and centralised decision-making that happens outside formal coordination meetings.
Many of the panellists called for transformative change in humanitarian response amid funding cuts (FCDO, UNICEF, Cash Consortium, BIMA), with speakers emphasising the need for increased risk appetite, more flexible funding mechanisms, and reimagining coordination structures to truly empower local actors.
Investing in local responders will have higher impact. It costs $5 for a local actor to deliver cash, in comparison to international NGOs, where it costs more than $100 (Reem Gasim, Cash Consortium). We can learn from other highly unreachable contexts, e.g. that partnerships between local NGOs are easier to form rather than with international NGOs, and help to reduce silos (Hisham Taha, Centre for Humanitarian and Development Excellence).
Building trust in digital humanitarian action: Safe and ethical AI
How do we ensure safe and participatory AI in the humanitarian sector? This panel discussed and showcased different AI frameworks and guidance. Key takeaways from the discussion were:
With the acceleration of AI adoption in humanitarian contexts, there is an urgent need for practical, accessible guidance to help humanitarian organisations make responsible decisions about AI procurement, adoption, and use - especially amid funding cuts that may incentivise rushed implementation.
There are significant gaps in AI governance mechanisms that bridge high-level principles with practical implementation, highlighting the need for frameworks that incorporate community participation, technical assurance processes, and context-specific risk assessments.
AI should be treated as a socio-technical system embedded within geopolitical realities, requiring humanitarian actors to consider how partnerships with technology companies affect impartiality, neutrality, and accountability to affected populations.
Access Now presented findings on the opacity of partnerships between humanitarian organisations and technology companies, revealing challenges with non-disclosure agreements and the need for greater transparency to enable sector-wide learning.
Scale participatory approaches, such as those of CDAC Network and FilmAid Kenya’s work in Kakuma Refugee Camp, or Nesta’s work in Turkey, and integrate them into wider humanitarian innovation pipelines. Ensure affected communities have a voice not just in feedback, but in decision-making. Successful examples of locally-developed AI solutions that prioritise community ownership and data sovereignty were shared, such as Māori language models in New Zealand and agricultural computer vision tools in West Africa.
The FCDO-funded SAFE AI project (housed at CDAC Network) outlined its approach to developing practical guidance that applies existing standards and principles to humanitarian contexts, focusing on participation, standards/regulation, and assurance processes.
When disinformation distorts: Enhancing accountability amid information disorder
This panel explored how false narratives impact aid delivery and examining practical solutions from contexts like Sudan and Ukraine (video & podcast below). Key takeaways from the discussion were:
Disinformation as a weapon of war: Panelists exposed how disinformation is not just noise online, but a deliberate tool of psychological warfare. In Sudan, the digital war was described as worse than the physical one. Disinformation is redrawing battle lines, disrupting aid, and influencing displacement patterns. On the other hand, laws meant to curb disinformation often become tools of repression. Wala warned that Sudan’s cybercrime law is being weaponised against activists and journalists.
Reframing the humanitarian narrative: The idea of "aid" itself is under coordinated attack with strategic deployment of emotionally resonant lies to fracture societies and obstruct aid. Online campaigns portray aid workers as spies or agents of neocolonialism. The panel acknowledged that the sector must reckon with deep-rooted mistrust—and that responding effectively means addressing both narrative and historical power imbalances. Trust is built offline - the sector must invest not just in content, but in relationships. Prebunking, community dialogue, and narrative sovereignty are tools for survival, not comms strategies.
Call for tactical, not just ethical, shifts: Platforms are failing. Trust and safety teams have been gutted. Algorithms amplify outrage. Humanitarians face a battlefield where neutrality is manipulated and trust is a moving target. We should abandon reactive whack-a-mole responses and adopt strategic, data-driven approaches that anticipate manipulation rather than merely respond to it.
Fact-checking alone is inadequate. Maria Frey emphasised the power of hyper-local networks and radio to cut through digital blackouts. Valent’s approach centres on identifying manipulation methods—not just debunking claims.
Thank you to all the panellists that brought such insightful and important perspectives to each of these panel discussions!
Photos from the HNPW week
