Executive Summary

SVRI conducted an online survey to understand what Forum delegates and members expect from SVRI Forum 2026, and what they need from a global convening for it to remain relevant, credible, and useful. The survey, open from September to November 2025, received 59 responses from researchers, practitioners, doners, advocates, funders, survivor-led organisations, and advisors, with the majority based in low- and middle-income regions.

Findings point to a field operating under sustained political, structural, and financial pressure. Respondents consistently identified backlash against gender equality, shrinking civic space, climate and economic instability, and funding cuts as shaping what is possible for prevention, response, research, and advocacy. Technology-facilitated GBV and AI-related harms were seen as urgent and rapidly accelerating, while evidence systems themselves were described as under strain.

Respondents expect the Opening Plenary to clearly name these conditions and situate the field within them. Backlash, geopolitics, and technology are seen as framing realities, rather than standalone topics. Lower-ranked themes are not viewed as less important, but as areas that must be addressed within this broader context.

Dialogic Sessions are expected to function as working spaces for applied learning and collective problem-solving. Priorities include navigating backlash in practice, adapting prevention and response under constraint, strengthening evidence use, and addressing digital and structural risks. Participants want frank discussion of trade-offs, failures, and strategies, rather than descriptive presentations.
Across the survey, there is a strong call for the Forum to model different ways of working. Respondents want greater visibility for locally led, practitioner, survivor, and youth knowledge; accessible and care-centred formats; and continuity beyond the event itself. The strongest message is not a demand for more content, but for better spaces to think, learn, and work together.

Taken together, the findings position SVRI Forum 2026 not simply as an event, but as part of the infrastructure the field needs to remain connected, credible, and effective during a period of significant transition.

Introduction

SVRI recently undertook an online survey to better understand the expectations of Forum delegates and SVRI members. This report brings together findings on what people expect from the SVRI Forum 2026 and what they need from a global convening for it to remain relevant, credible, and useful. The analysis focuses on two key parts of the programme. The Opening Plenary is expected to set the scene by naming the political, social, and structural conditions shaping work on violence against women and children. The Dialogic Sessions are expected to create space for shared learning, collaboration, and practical problem-solving.

Overall, the findings highlight where pressure is being felt most strongly across the field, and what participants believe the Forum needs to acknowledge, prioritise, and make possible at this point in time.

Methods

The online survey was open for around three months, from September to November 2025, and was shared widely through SVRI networks and partner channels.

It included questions on:
• participants’ region and sector of work
• proposed Forum themes, which respondents were asked to rank
• learning needs, concerns, and ideas for the programme, shared through open-ended questions

We received 59 responses from people working across research, practice, advocacy, funding, survivor-led organisations, and advisory roles.

Open-ended responses were analysed to identify common themes, areas of tension, and points of agreement. The ranking data was used to add context to these findings, rather than to outweigh what people shared in their own words.

Findings

Participants: Regions and work sectors

Overall, the majority of respondents were based in low- and middle-income regions, representing multiple regions. Most were from Africa (37.3%) and Southeast Asia and the Pacific (23.7%), followed by Europe and Central Asia (16.9%) and South Asia (8.5%). Smaller proportions of respondents were based in North America (6.8%), Latin America and the Caribbean (5.1%), and the Middle East and North Africa (1.7%).

Forum themes

Respondents were asked to comment on Forum themes, identify topics for dialogic sessions and to tell us what they wanted to see in the opening plenary.

There was strong support for the pre-selected Forum themes. Backlash and technology were seen as overarching conditions that should shape plenary discussions, while the other themes were viewed as better suited to parallel and Dialogic Sessions.

Respondents were asked to rate five proposed thematic areas. All themes were seen as important, but the results show clear differences in how urgent they feel, how widely they are agreed upon, and what role they should play in the programme.

Opening plenary: Naming the moment

Priority ranking

Two patterns stand out. Backlash, rights, and geopolitics received the widest agreement overall, suggesting a shared understanding that the wider political environment is shaping all work in the field. Technology, AI, and TFGBV attracted the highest number of “top priority” ratings, reflecting strong concern about the speed and scale of harm.

Together, these findings suggest that participants expect the Opening Plenary to clearly name and explain the moment the field is operating in, before moving into more detailed, solution-focused discussions. Lower-ranked themes are not seen as less important, but as areas that respond to this context rather than define it.

Backlash, rights, and geopolitics

Backlash against gender equality is described as a current, lived reality. Respondents point to shrinking civic space, democratic backsliding, reduced funding, and conflict as factors that directly affect prevention, response, research, and advocacy.

There is particular concern about the safety and sustainability of women’s rights organisations and GBV service providers, especially in conflict-affected and politically restrictive settings. Respondents raise questions about how protection and services can continue where political support is weak or openly hostile, and about uneven global attention to conflict-related sexual violence.

Alongside these concerns, respondents emphasise solidarity. They want an Opening Plenary that is politically honest without being overwhelming, one that names risk while also offering shared purpose and direction.

Technology, AI, and technology-facilitated GBV

Respondents described technology-facilitated GBV and AI-related harms as urgent and rapidly expanding. These harms were not seen as emerging issues, but as already widespread and accelerating across multiple contexts.

TFGBV is growing exponentially. It’s an absolutely urgent issue.

A consistent concern was the lack of shared understanding about types of harm, who is responsible, how data is protected, and how survivor safety is ensured. Several respondents linked TFGBV to geopolitics and conflict, pointing to surveillance, targeting, and the use of digital systems in warfare.

Technology was not viewed as inherently helpful. While respondents expressed interest in innovation, they emphasised the need for clear safeguards, ethical oversight, and caution around misinformation and unintended harm.

Innovations in prevention and response

Respondents described innovation as practical adaptation to real constraints, not novelty for its own sake. Shrinking funding, political hostility, and more complex forms of violence are making many existing programme models hard to sustain.

Participants noted that traditional approaches are being outpaced by the speed and scale of harm, particularly in under-resourced and high-risk settings. Innovation was therefore seen as necessary to keep prevention and response work viable, rather than as an optional area of experimentation

At the same time, respondents were clear that innovation must remain evidence-informed and accountable. They cautioned against quick fixes, untested solutions, or approaches that shift risk onto communities or survivors.

Climate, economy, and structural drivers of violence

Respondents consistently linked GBV to wider structural conditions, including climate stress, economic insecurity, displacement, patriarchy, and militarisation. Climate was not discussed as a standalone issue, but as part of interconnected systems of inequality.

This isn’t necessarily a ‘topic of the moment’ – it’s always important.

For the Opening Plenary, respondents expect this theme to be framed as a driver that increases risk and worsens existing patterns of violence. The emphasis is on how environmental and economic shocks are already reshaping household dynamics, community safety, and access to services, rather than on abstract or future-oriented climate narratives.

Strengthening the evidence ecosystem

Although ranked lower in terms of plenary urgency, respondents still expect the Opening Plenary to recognise that evidence systems are under strain. Funding cuts, political resistance to gender research, ethical challenges around AI and data use, and extractive research practices are seen as weakening trust and impact.

How do we shift from endless research cycles to ensuring investment in rolling out recommendations made in research papers?

Given funding cuts, donor risk aversion, and growing political backlash against gender equality and gender research, respondents expect the plenary to clarify what counts as credible evidence, whose knowledge is valued, and how evidence can be protected and used.

Dialogic sessions: Participant priorities

When priorities are considered specifically for Dialogic Sessions, a clearer order emerges. This reflects where participants most want applied, collective learning rather than information sharing.

Priority ranking

This ranking suggests a field looking for practical ways to adapt under constraint. Technology is seen mainly as a condition shaping the work, not as an end in itself.

Overall, respondents view Dialogic Sessions as working spaces for collective sense-making and problem-solving, not as forums for describing programmes or restating known challenges.

Backlash, rights, and geopolitics

In Dialogic Sessions, backlash and geopolitics were treated as operational challenges to be navigated, not issues to be defined. Respondents want to examine how organisations are adjusting to shrinking civic space, unstable funding, and political hostility.

How do we deliver effective EVAWG/GBV programming in rights-restricted contexts?

Key areas of interest include sharing risk between donors and implementers, sustaining feminist and grassroots organisations, protecting staff and practitioners, and using evidence to counter misinformation and delegitimisation. Participants expect frank discussion of trade-offs, constraints, and real strategies, rather than advocacy messaging.

Innovative evidence building in prevention and response

For Dialogic Sessions, research and evidence building is expected to be practical and collaborative. Respondents want prevention and response work to be planned and delivered together, rather than as separate activities. This is especially important in low-resource and conflict-affected settings, where services are limited and people often need immediate support at the same time as longer-term efforts to reduce violence.

Instead of key learning, it could be interesting to model this as a kind of ‘dragon’s den’ or ‘pitching’ space where we do rapid fire exchanges and learning around new innovations.

There is strong interest in learning about / sharing co-designed, survivor-centred, youth-led, and community-owned approaches, alongside coordination across sectors. Participants want to discuss what works, what does not, and why, including issues of scale, sustainability, and unintended effects. Innovation is understood as collective, iterative, and grounded in lived realities.

Technology, AI, and digital safety

Respondents see Dialogic Sessions as the main space for practical learning and capacity strengthening on technology-related issues. Priority topics include digital safety, ethical use of AI, survivor-centred data protection, and cross-border responses to TFGBV.

Participants also want space to discuss limits, including when technology should not be used, where safeguards break down, and how to avoid technological solutionism. These sessions are expected to balance innovation with caution and to centre survivor safety.

Climate, economy, and structural drivers

For Dialogic Sessions, respondents want practice-based discussion of how climate and economic pressures intersect with GBV. This includes grounded case examples from contexts affected by displacement, climate shocks, and austerity.

Participants are particularly interested in honest discussion of trade-offs, unintended harms, and adaptation strategies, rather than idealised or generic models.

Strengthening the evidence ecosystem

In Dialogic Sessions, the evidence ecosystem is seen as something to be examined and reworked collectively. Respondents want to address power in research, ethical challenges in data and AI use, and the reasons evidence often fails to influence policy and practice.
There is strong interest in dialogue across researchers, practitioners, funders, and community actors, focused on incentives, ownership, care, and accountability. These sessions are expected to be critical, practical, and honest.

When you compare the number of views a TikTok video has versus a UN report – it is clear that approaches need to change.

Centring knowledge, care, and access: What the Forum should model

Across responses, there is a clear call for the Forum to change whose knowledge is prioritised and how learning is held, in a context of growing political backlash, shrinking civic space, and pressure on funding and evidence systems. Respondents want greater visibility for practitioners, frontline activists, survivor-leaders, youth, and practice-based researchers, alongside feminist, survivor-centred, and trauma-informed leadership. There is explicit resistance to relying on a small group of highly visible global figures, particularly from high-income settings, which respondents see as misaligned with the realities facing the field.

Instead, participants favour contributors who work across intersections such as masculinities, institutional accountability, technology, climate, and economic justice, and who can translate complexity into practical learning.

As one respondent asked:

What can survivors teach us? What stories do we need to tell?

This shift extends beyond speakers to the kinds of work the Forum elevates. Respondents value locally led, community-driven, and system-level approaches that show how prevention and response connect in practice, particularly under conditions of resource constraint and political hostility. Innovation is welcomed when it is evidence-informed and ethical, and when it includes honest reflection on limits, trade-offs, and sustainability. Visibility of low- and middle-income country leadership is framed as an issue of power and fairness, especially in a moment when funding cuts and delegitimisation of gender work risk narrowing whose knowledge is heard.

Respondents also stress that design maters as much as content. In a field facing burnout, risk, and sustained pressure, they call for interactive, care-centred, and accessible formats that lead to concrete outcomes, centre lived experience without extraction and create trauma-aware spaces for learning and reflection. Access is treated as foundational to credibility: financial accessibility, language justice, disability inclusion, and hybrid participation are seen as essential, not optional. There is also strong interest in continuity beyond the event itself, with the Forum positioned as part of a wider learning infrastructure that supports follow-up, collaboration, and shared accountability.

As one respondent put it:

Include reflective, healing spaces for us to rest, reconnect, and co-create future visions.

Conclusion

Taken together, the findings present a field operating under sustained political, structural, and financial pressure. Backlash against gender equality, climate and economic instability, and shrinking funding are shaping what is possible for prevention, response, research, and advocacy. Respondents expect the Opening Plenary to name this reality clearly and honestly, and they expect Dialogic Sessions to help them work within it.

The strongest signal from the data is not a call for more content, but for better containers. Respondents want spaces that help people stay in the work, adapt under constraint, and think together across evidence, practice, and lived experience, while maintaining care, safety, and integrity.

Framed in this way, SVRI Forum 2026 is not simply an event. It is part of the infrastructure the field needs to remain credible, connected, and effective in a period of profound transition.