The dialogue placed linkages and transitions at the centre, explicitly focusing on Catalytic Agenda recommendation 3 (“work with and through national systems as the default, where feasible”) and recommendation 4 (“design humanitarian and social protection systems with clear pathways to and from nationally led or hybrid arrangements”). The discussions moved beyond general endorsement and into operational tensions: risk, trust, data, accountability, contested control, and the practical politics of “defaulting” to national systems.
Conflict is not an automatic red line
A key corrective to common practice was the insistence that conflict is not automatically a red line for engaging with national systems. Participants repeatedly challenged the assumption that FCAS lack social protection capacity, describing this as a myth in many contexts – including the hyper-prioritised Humanitarian Reset list. The issue was framed not as absence, but as uneven maturity, fragmentation, and contested legitimacy.
The dialogue also emphasised that “government” (best defined as the ‘state’ as less political connotation) should not be treated as a single counterpart: engaging with national systems requires granular political economy and conflict analysis to identify where capacity, legitimacy, and reach exist (across different Ministries and levels of implementation), and where hybrid or indirect arrangements are necessary.
From linear handovers to two‑way transitions
Parallel humanitarian systems were widely recognised as too often being the automatic default. The dialogue stressed that transitions should not be understood as linear “handovers” from humanitarian to government delivery. Instead, systems in FCAS need to enable movement in both directions: humanitarian programmes should have credible pathways into national or hybrid systems, while national systems should allow temporary shifts away from state delivery when conflict, displacement, or contested governance disrupt normal functioning (‘on and off-ramps’). This two‑way framing helps reconcile humanitarian principles with system‑building, avoiding both unsafe reliance on state systems and the entrenchment of parallel structures.
Data interoperability as necessary but political
Data was repeatedly described as foundational, but contested based on who produces and controls it, what it reveals or obscures, and how it can shift power away from affected people. In Somalia and Syria, fragmented registries and limited interoperability were cited as major barriers to coherence and transition. Participants stressed, however, that technical fixes alone cannot resolve the underlying political economy of data. In Syria in particular, concerns about data sharing were seen as a central constraint in moving towards nationally anchored systems. The dialogue reinforced calls for clear and detailed protocols for data sharing and handover between humanitarian and national systems, alongside safeguards against digital exclusion, privacy violations and misuse.
Trust and diversion in design and delivery
Trust and the potential for aid diversion emerged as central factors in whether the commitment to “back national systems” can work. Discussions highlighted that trust is shaped by delivery experience, transparency, and grievance response, and not by rhetoric alone. Participants repeatedly returned to the reality of corruption and diversion. Terminology was also highlighted as important: “corruption” as a blanket label can be damaging and imprecise, while “diversion” may capture specific patterns such as post‑delivery extraction by gatekeepers. Diversion was highlighted as both a risk and a potential outcome of design that inadvertently “supports” it, for example when community selection processes or the role of local intermediaries are structured in ways that concentrate power without accountability.
The dialogue stressed the need for greater attention to stronger transparency and accountability in government led systems and for greater dialogue and communication between governments and civil society to build trust in national systems and to connect formal and less formal forms of social protection.
Local capacity sustains systems
Sustainable transitions depend on local governance, frontline workers, and two‑way dialogue with communities. Participants emphasised that system resilience in FCAS is maintained by the people who keep programmes running during shocks: local officials, social workers, community intermediaries, and civil society actors. Yet current investments often prioritise central systems over local capacity.
More attention was seen as needed to better support frontline workers and social workers. Existing disaster management and crisis response structures were highlighted as effective channels for communication and feedback, while grievance redress and community‑level dialogue were seen as core system functions underpinning trust, legitimacy, and adaptive delivery.