IOB commissioned the Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) and Humanitarian Advisory Group (HAG) to conduct a literature study on local humanitarian action. After assessing the existing evidence base on local humanitarian action, the study makes a number of strategic recommendations for the Netherlands and other donors. This literature study supports the ongoing evaluation of humanitarian assistance of the Netherlands, funding and diplomacy between 2015 to 2020.
Introduction
Understanding the impact of ‘localisation’ on strengthening effective and efficient responses to humanitarian crises continues to be a key policy and practice concern for donors and the broader sector. Criticisms of a ‘broken’ humanitarian system dominated by international actors has led to commitments, such as those in the Grand Bargain, intended to bring transformational change. These include promises to address inequalities in the system, such as the inequitable recognition given to local actors despite their frontline role in humanitarian responses. Donors play a critical role in creating effective policies and incentives to support localisation. However, the existence of an evidence gap on the impact of local humanitarian actions in combination with the persistence of power imbalances between international and local actors has resulted in a fundamental lack of clear strategic and policy direction for most donors on localization. This literature study consists of a systemic review of the localisation literature and aims to inform specific recommendations to donors on how to promote localisation.
Key question
What added value does localisation of humanitarian assistance bring in the pursuit of Dutch policy objectives and what are effective ways for the Netherlands as a donor and diplomatic actor to promote local humanitarian action?
Key findings
Strategic recommendations for donors and diplomatic actors.
Image: © Shutterstock
Work collectively as donors – for instance through the Good Humanitarian Donorship Group or the OECD – to develop strategic approaches that outline desired impacts and outcomes for supporting locally led action across humanitarian programming, responses and portfolios to create the right incentives for change. This recommendation can be achieved by (I) individual donors ensuring these strategies are incorporated across portfolios; (II) creating incentives through rewarding intermediaries for their partnership practices, for cascading quality funding to local actors, for risk sharing and investing in bottom up and coordinated capacity-strengthening; (III) donors using their collective diplomatic powers to influence international actors including through requesting more transparency, and through monitoring and evaluation of funding and partnership practices; (IV) ensuring requirements in grant agreements will improve partnership terms from the perspectives of local actors; (V) supporting national localisation strategies.
This requires consensus on the interpretation of zero tolerance and residual risk when considering risk sharing, with agreement on what is an acceptable level of residual risk. This recommendation can be achieved by (I) engaging in honest dialogue at senior political levels on zero tolerance to risk and acceptable levels of residual risk; (II) developing a joint risk agenda across donors, harmonising due diligence and reporting requirements; (III) ensuring risk analysis and risk management carried out jointly with local partners; (IV) explicitly linking approaches to risk sharing with quality funding, including through the provision of adequate funding for overhead costs and ensuring intermediaries pass on funding for overheads.
Image: © Shutterstock
International actors need to be incentivised and made accountable to change their partnership practices and value the needs and priorities of local actors. This recommendation can be achieved by (I) monitoring, evaluating and incentivising intermediary actors based on the quality of their partnerships with local actors; (II) engaging UN agencies and large international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) in dialogue on their partnership practices; (III) and supporting processes for national and local actors to report directly to donors on partnership quality. Donors can use this feedback to make informed funding decisions.
Funding from donors continues to flow mainly through international intermediaries. As a result, there remains a critical gap in terms of quality, amount and duration of funding local actors can access as well as transparency on how funding flows down to local actors. The recommendation can be achieved by (I) ensuring that long-term funding covers core costs to local actors as a mandatory requirement and linking funding with commitments to risk sharing; (II) using diplomatic influencing to achieve greater transparency on funding flows; (III) monitoring, evaluating and incentivising intermediary actors based on the quality of partnerships; (IV) increasing funding to pooled fund mechanisms; (V) and exploring blended humanitarian development funds.
Image: © Shutterstock
Current long-term capacity-strengthening efforts remain unidirectional, ad hoc, uncoordinated, lacking the right investment and often use ineffective capacity sharing approaches. The recommendation can be achieved by (I) making resourced capacity sharing an objective of all partnerships supported by a budget line for capacity sharing; (II) requiring partners to coordinate capacity sharing through coordination system and working with other international actors partnering with the same local actors; (III) and articulating a donor approach for systematic investment in capacity sharing.
Ministries should adopt a comprehensive strategy across their humanitarian, peace and development donor portfolio to support local civil society’s role in local humanitarian action and leadership in crisis response, including through strengthening blending of humanitarian and development financing.
Donors and others with capacity to commission or produce research should invest in ways of measuring the impact of localisation on the quality of humanitarian responses and outcomes for people in crises. They should also invest in approaches to understand the perspectives of crisis-affected people on the relative advantages of the status quo and more locally led aid models.