In an era of escalating crises, from conflict to climate-induced disasters, humanitarian assistance must reach more people and do so more effectively. Yet one crucial element often overlooked in delivering impactful aid is language. Language inclusion is not a peripheral concern; it is central to accountability to affected people (AAP). Without it, aid cannot be truly responsive, equitable, or effective.
Language accessibility: the backbone of accountability
In 2024, an estimated 299.4 million people worldwide needed humanitarian assistance and protection. That number is projected to rise to 305.1 million in 2025, driven by conflict, displacement, and climate change. At the same time, humanitarian funding is shrinking. In this high-stakes environment, making every dollar count requires listening to and empowering those most affected, especially the least visible and least heard.
Language is a key determinant of who gets seen and heard. While AAP has gained traction over the last 25 years, implementation remains inconsistent. Despite the rhetoric of localization and community engagement, international actors still hold most decision-making power, often sidelining local civil society and communities, especially those who speak minority or marginalized languages.
The cost of language exclusion
Globally, over 7,000 languages are spoken. Yet during humanitarian crises, information is typically shared only in dominant national languages or not at all. This language gap becomes a barrier to survival. For instance, CLEAR Global’s research on the 2022 floods in Pakistan revealed that some of the most severely affected communities received no information, whether from governments or aid organizations, because they did not speak the languages used in public messaging.
Language exclusion compounds vulnerability. When people cannot access timely, accurate information or provide feedback in languages they understand, they are unable to advocate for their needs or challenge ineffective programming. It undermines trust, limits participation, and diminishes the quality and reach of humanitarian aid.
Facing the reality: aid must be co-created
Donors rightly expect humanitarian funding to provide aid that meets urgent needs and helps communities get ready for future crises. But this is only achievable if communities are active participants, not passive recipients, in shaping aid responses. That means speaking to them in the right languages, in plain terms, and in accessible formats.
Too often, aid organizations prioritize the languages their staff are most comfortable with or that they believe donors expect. Reviews of aid materials in the Rohingya response in Bangladesh and the humanitarian crisis in Northeast Nigeria showed widespread use of English, even when local languages would have been more appropriate. Inaccessible messaging erodes trust, which is a foundation for accountability.
Additionally, people with disabilities often lack access to appropriate communication tools that accommodate their needs. Language inclusion must also account for format and accessibility, not just vocabulary.
A path forward: practical recommendations
- Start with language mapping
Humanitarian actors should identify the languages spoken in their areas of operation as a foundational AAP activity. This can be done collaboratively, sharing costs and insights across agencies. Donors can incentivize this by making it a grant requirement and funding it accordingly. - Build language inclusion into project design
Language-related activities, materials, and budgets must be integrated from the proposal stage onward. This ensures that language inclusion is not an afterthought, but a core component of aid planning and delivery. - Ask first, design second
Before designing communication materials or feedback mechanisms, aid providers must consult communities about their preferred languages and formats. This simple step can dramatically increase engagement and effectiveness. - Co-create communication tools
Partnering with communities to design both digital and non-digital tools for two-way communication enhances relevance and sustainability. These tools should remain useful beyond the emergency phase and support longer-term development. - Use plain language
Humanitarian professionals often default to jargon. Simplifying language, across all channels, ensures that messages are understood and acted upon.
Humanitarian aid cannot meet its objectives unless the people it aims to help are included in meaningful, language-accessible ways. Language inclusion is not a technical fix. It is a moral imperative, a practical necessity, and a cornerstone of true accountability. If the humanitarian system is to fulfill its promise, it must listen to every voice, in every language.
By Carolyn Davis