New research identifies key barriers preventing progress on localising humanitarian responses

Localisation emerged on the global policy stage with the World Humanitarian Summit and alongside the Grand Bargain in 2016, which set a goal for the humanitarian community to make humanitarian responses “as local as possible, as international as necessary.” But the Grand Bargain goal of 25% of funding going as ‘directly as possible’ to local and national NGOs has not been met. 

“Progress has been difficult and slow, and progress in policy, funding, and organisational practices has been limited,” report co-author Mark Johnson explained.  “Our research sought to identify the barriers which need to be overcome in order to create a more inclusive humanitarian system – one that allows for preparedness, response and recovery efforts to be led by those directly affected by a crisis.” 

The lack of trust between stakeholders, identified by the researchers, has led to increased risk aversion, reduced coordination, a greater undermining of capacity, inhibited innovation and decreased effectiveness.  “Trust building is a fundamental competency required for achieving a locally led response, and more work is needed by organisations to build trust if localisation goals are to be achieved,” he said.

Concern Worldwide, in partnership with a team of five researchers and with funding support from USAID’s Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance, carried out the Beyond Barriers project to investigate what was required for the humanitarian system to make genuine progress on localisation, in terms of both the underlying ethical ambition and the change of operational policies.

The project produced a set of evidence-based operational solutions to the barriers that undermine response effectiveness by failing to engage actors at all levels of the humanitarian system appropriately. In terms of scope, the project focused on three areas that are central to the localisation debate:  humanitarian funding; human resources; and power dynamics in partnership.

Extensive research was conducted. It examined progress on, and barriers to, localisation in five distinct humanitarian contexts -- Malawi, Bangladesh, North West Syria, Somalia, and Democratic Republic of Congo. Stakeholders in the workshops and key informant interviews (KIIs) included practitioners from local and national NGOs (L/NNGOs), international NGOs (INGOs), and UN agencies. 

Interviews and consultations were conducted between September 2022 and May 2023.  The extensive research involved 172 workshop participants; 293 KIIs, 34 focus groups and 811 survey respondents from 60 countries.  “We interviewed local communities to ensure their views were considered. This aspect has been overlooked by much of the research on localisation,” Mr Johnson said.

Concern’s research partners were: Malawi -- Herbert Mwalukomo, Gloria Majiga and Stern Kita​​, from CEPA; North West Syria -- Youssef Almustafa and Mazen Alhousseiny​​ from Trust; Bangladesh -- Mahfuza Mala and Farah Anzum; DRC -- Emmanuel Muzigirwa Muke and Gang Karume​, from IES; Somalia -- Nouradin H. Nour and Mukhtar Mahamat​ (from New Access).

The report found that creating a more locally led response required more nuanced measurement and accountability mechanisms than simply tracking the number of direct funds provided to L/NNGOs. It was equally important to measure the quality of this funding, such as Indirect Cost Recovery sharing, and the level of ownership and decision-making power held by communities and local entities.              

The report’s other findings included: 

• “Localisation” has different meanings for different actors. The research found two broad dimensions within localisation. The first is localisation of the humanitarian system, which means shifting power and resources from international actors to L/NNGOs. The second dimension— locally-led responses or local leadership—ensures that those affected by the crisis lead humanitarian responses. The research found an overemphasis on the first dimension, often at the second's expense.
• Equitable partnerships are an essential starting point for shifting to a locally led response. Shifting power to L/NNGOs must be an objective in all partnerships, where the aim is to “adjourn” the partnership and transfer ownership of programming and control of financing to L/NNGOs. For this to happen, the role of INGOs must be reimagined.
• Perception and prioritisation of risk differ significantly between local and international actors. Both groups face varied risks (such as fiduciary, security, and reputational risks) that must be recognised. Moreover, risk-sharing models have not been adopted at scale. International actors are perceived to be highly risk averse. Their compliance requirements are beyond the reach of many L/NNGOs. This level of risk aversion perpetuates the preference for funding international intermediaries instead of L/NNGOs.
• Pooled fund mechanisms have successfully channelled direct funding to L/NNGOs. However, these mechanisms represent such a small proportion of overall humanitarian funding that they alone cannot drive progress on localisation. Pooled funds also favour larger L/NNGOs, who can meet the eligibility and compliance requirements. Further work is required to ensure the organisations receiving funding represent the communities served. Increased decision transparency and space for L/NNGOs’ influence are also needed.
• All actors see capacity as one of the greatest barriers to a more locally led response, and capacity strengthening is seen as one of the most powerful solutions. Yet stakeholders’ perceptions of capacity differ greatly and often diverge over the most important capacities for L/NNGOs’ advancement. Both international and L/NNGOs have capacity gaps, many of which could be alleviated through mutual capacity sharing, requiring equitable partnership.
• Staff recruitment and retention are persistent problems for humanitarian actors. The lack of pay parity between local and international actors, as well as the predominance of project-based, short-term funding in the sector, make it difficult for L/NNGOs to retain their most experienced staff. Recruitment of L/NNGO staff to work at international organisations is common, leading to instability at the L/NNGO level and loss of institutional knowledge. All international actors recognise the role they play, yet concrete steps to address or mitigate the problem are not evident.

The researchers also produced a tool kit to help those working to localise humanitarian work. “These have been developed as a result of what we learnt during our research. The tools are currently being validated and piloted,” Mr Johnson said. “We would invite any organisation that would like to participate in this process to contact us.”

 The tools are designed to assist organisations to: 

• Assess the foundations of trust between partners and to better diagnose the actions that build and break down trust; 
• Measure the effectiveness of humanitarian funding in achieving locally led responses; 
• Gauge the level of localisation based on USAID’s Locally Led Programmes Indicator, including leadership and participation in the design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of a given humanitarian response; 
• Evaluate the level of localisation based on USAID’s Locally Led Programmes Indicator, including local communities’ level of leadership and participation in the design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of a given humanitarian response.

These tools, accompanying guidance notes, the full report and case studies are accessible from the Beyond Barriers website 

For media queries and to organise an interview with the report’s authors, contact Eamon Timmins, Media Relations Manager, Concern Worldwide, at eamon.timmins@concern.net or 00 353 87 9880524