The Humanitarian Localization Imperative: An In-Depth Analysis for Practitioners and Donors

The Humanitarian Localization Imperative: An In-Depth Analysis for Practitioners and Donors

By Tahir Ali Shah

I. Introduction: What is Humanitarian Localization?

Humanitarian localization is a change in how aid is provided during crises, focusing on local responders in affected countries. It’s about more than just giving help; it empowers local organizations and communities to take charge of aid efforts. This means strengthening their abilities and resources to respond to crises and build long-term solutions.

This shift involves transferring decision-making power from international organizations to local communities and leaders. They get to decide what services are needed, who leads and receives aid, when and where help is given, and how it is managed. The main goal is to make sure that humanitarian efforts meet the real needs and priorities of the affected communities, rather than being influenced by outside political factors. This approach focuses on giving resources directly to those who need them, trusting local communities to make the best choices for themselves without many restrictions.

The idea of making aid more local has become more important in the humanitarian field, especially after the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit and the Grand Bargain agreement that came after. This global agreement aimed to change how aid is delivered by making it "as local as possible and as international as necessary." The summit acknowledged the important role of local NGOs and aid workers, often the first to respond in a crisis. They have strong connections in their communities and valuable knowledge about the local situation.

One major promise of the Grand Bargain was to ensure that at least 25% of international humanitarian funding would go directly to local organizations by 2020. However, actual funding to these local groups was much lower. In fact, from 2016 to 2020, there was even a drop in the money going directly to local entities.

To address this ongoing issue, the Grand Bargain 2.0 was introduced in 2021. It aimed to provide more support for local leaders, help them build their skills, and encourage communities to actively take charge of meeting their own humanitarian needs. This renewed agreement emphasizes the importance of respecting, supporting, and empowering local responders as key to effective humanitarian work.

II. The Importance and Rationale Behind Localization

The focus on humanitarian localization is growing because of both ethical and practical reasons. Ethically, local people and organizations understand their communities best and should play a major role in responding to crises. They are involved throughout the whole crisis process, from the first emergency to long-term recovery, making their leadership important. Helping local actors is also about their rights and self-determination, allowing people affected by crises to take charge of their recovery instead of just receiving aid. Building local humanitarian organizations is crucial for supporting these rights and fostering a sense of community responsibility.

There's also a need to shift away from a Western-centered view of aid that sometimes treats local communities as if they cannot help themselves. This is important to prevent repeating colonial attitudes where international actors are seen as the main heroes, which can diminish local people's abilities. The idea of “Decolonization”  in humanitarian work stresses the need to break down these old patterns and address power imbalances in aid.

On the practical side, locally led responses are often more effective and cost-efficient. Local actors know the specific challenges their communities face and have established connections that allow them to reach people in need more easily, especially in remote or conflict areas where outsiders might struggle. They are present in their communities not just during emergencies but also before and after, which helps link immediate help with long-term recovery and preparedness for future crises. This connection to local life means that initiatives are more relevant and can last over time, which is especially important given the increasing needs and funding shortages in humanitarian work.

III. Key Components and Principles of the Localization Agenda

The humanitarian localization agenda is built upon several key components and guiding principles that aim to reshape the delivery of aid. A fundamental aspect is the shifting of funding and resources to local and national actors. This involves increasing the proportion of international humanitarian funding that is channeled directly to these entities, with the Grand Bargain's 25% target serving as a key benchmark. However, it is important to note that as of 2021, the actual amount of funding reaching local actors directly remained significantly below this target, highlighting a persistent gap between aspiration and reality. This shift also necessitates providing flexible, multi-year funding that extends beyond specific project activities to cover essential overhead costs and support the long-term institutional Capacity of local organizations. Local organizations have expressed a need for funding that offers flexibility in terms of amount and duration, avoiding unnecessary restrictions and burdensome administrative processes. Facilitating access to localized financing models and strengthening national grant-making bodies are also critical elements in ensuring that resources are available at the local level. Examples of such models include the establishment of pooled funds or the utilization of local networks to distribute smaller grants to grassroots organizations.  

Another cornerstone of the localization agenda is building equitable partnerships between international and local organizations. This requires moving beyond traditional hierarchical relationships and establishing partnerships grounded in fairness, impartiality, mutual respect, trust, and shared decision-making authority. It means transitioning away from a model where local organizations are treated merely as subcontractors and embracing genuine collaboration where their voices, knowledge, and expertise are actively sought and respected in the development of humanitarian solutions. This necessitates a fundamental change in mindset for international actors, adopting the perspective of an equitable partner rather than solely acting as a donor. It involves recognizing and valuing the unique expertise, extensive experience, vital role, and significant contributions of local actors and the communities they serve in addressing crises. Partnership agreements should be designed as long-term commitments that are genuinely equitable, incorporating the principles outlined in the framework principles of partnership.  

Strengthening local Capacities: The localization agenda is very important. It means putting money and effort into building the long-term skills and systems of local organizations. This includes improving areas like governance, management, finance, and the specific skills needed to provide humanitarian aid responsibly. Funding for capacity building is seen as a priority.

Local actors should drive these efforts based on their own needs, using a teamwork approach rather than a top-down one. This means providing support and coaching that is tailored to their specific situations instead of using one-size-fits-all solutions. Another important idea is Community-Based Programming, which recognizes that communities are resourceful and bring valuable knowledge and skills to humanitarian work.

The localization agenda also highlights the need for better involvement of local organizations in humanitarian efforts. These local groups need to be part of decision-making processes and coordination from the beginning to the end of humanitarian programs.

International humanitarian systems should be more open and welcoming to local actors. The goal is to give local organizations more presence, influence, and leadership roles in these coordination efforts. This includes improving communication with them and ensuring they have a say in every part of the humanitarian response, from assessing needs to evaluating results.

While there is progress, with more local and national actors in key roles, more work is needed to help them take on leadership positions. There are still issues, like discrimination and power imbalances, in international organizations that make this harder. Local actors should also take the initiative to propose themselves for leadership roles in coordination efforts within their countries.

IV. Benefits of a Localized Humanitarian Response

A localized approach to humanitarian action has many important benefits, making it more effective and sustainable for people affected by crises. One big advantage is that local groups can reach those in need more easily. They often know the area well, have relationships with the community, and understand local issues better than international organizations, especially in remote or conflict-hit areas. Their constant presence in the community before, during, and after a crisis helps them access people more effectively. Local networks allow them to quickly find and help the most vulnerable individuals.

Another key benefit of working with local organizations is that their efforts are more culturally relevant. They understand the cultural norms, values, and languages of their communities, which helps them create programs that fit local needs. This cultural understanding builds trust and acceptance among the people they are helping. If aid is designed without considering local customs, it might not work well and could even cause problems. By using local knowledge, aid can be tailored to fit the community's culture and reality, ensuring it has a positive impact.

Additionally, a localized response can save money and be more efficient. Local initiatives usually have lower costs because they don’t have the same overhead expenses as international organizations. Studies show that local groups can often provide help at a lower cost, sometimes saving around 17% compared to international counterparts. This means more resources can be used to address other important needs or reach more people. When donors give directly to local organizations, they can also reduce administrative costs. Overall, using local expertise can lead to better, more efficient outcomes in the long run.

Localization is very important for helping communities affected by crises to become stronger and more sustainable over time. By supporting local people and recognizing their efforts, humanitarian work can create jobs and develop local leaders. This means that even when international organizations leave, the responses can continue to be effective. Localization bridges the gap between immediate humanitarian aid and longer-term development, helping communities become more resilient to future challenges. It encourages local solutions and promotes recovery, so that external aid helps communities stand on their own rather than creating dependency. Local actors are involved before, during, and after crises, making them well-suited to tackle the root causes of these humanitarian issues.

V. Challenges and Obstacles to Effective Localization

Even though there is a growing agreement on the need for humanitarian localization, several significant challenges make it hard to achieve. One major issue is the power imbalances and inequalities within the international humanitarian system. This system has often excluded and marginalized local humanitarian groups, especially those in the Global South (Countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania, often characterized by lower income levels and developing economies compared to the Global North, which includes Europe and North America. It's not a geographical term, but rather a way to group countries based on shared socio-economic and political characteristics, leading to deep-seated imbalances and barriers to meaningful localization. These imbalances can be traced back to colonial roots in the international aid system. Donors and international organizations often control funding and decision-making, treating local organizations more like subcontractors rather than equal partners. This creates a hierarchical setup where countries in the Global South are placed at a disadvantage.

To overcome these power dynamics, international actors need to change their mindsets and practices to genuinely empower local leaders. Another challenge is the belief that only those with international experience can take on leadership roles, which hampers the localization of humanitarian leadership.

Local actors also face serious funding challenges that make it hard for them to lead humanitarian efforts. Strict application and reporting requirements set by international donors, along with grant amounts that are often too large for smaller local groups, create significant obstacles. Smaller organizations may struggle to access funding because they lack the administrative skills to navigate complex application processes. Additionally, many local organizations do not receive enough overhead funding to help them meet donor requirements or strengthen their systems. While many international organizations receive overhead support, this often does not extend to local groups, creating an unfair situation. Donors tend to prefer funding organizations they already know, which, while intended to reduce risk, can prevent new local actors from getting included and maintain existing funding patterns.

Capacity concerns and risk management are big challenges for improving localization. Many international organizations believe that local groups lack the necessary skills and resources, which can lead them to avoid giving direct funding or leadership roles to these local organizations. This creates a cycle: because local organizations don’t receive funding and resources, they struggle to develop the skills that are seen as important. International agencies usually check local groups for specific abilities, like technical skills, reporting, and following donor rules.

Additionally, international actors often do not trust local organizations with money management and accountability, which is a major barrier for these organizations trying to get funding and build fair partnerships. To overcome these capacity issues, there needs to be a change in approach. International organizations should work together with local groups, providing support and resources to help strengthen their systems instead of using perceived weaknesses to maintain the current system. Building trust and creating risk management solutions that fit the local context are also important steps. Criticizing local organizations for having "low capacity" can further strengthen existing power imbalances in humanitarian work.

Another big obstacle is that there isn't a clear definition of "localization," which makes it hard to implement effectively. Different humanitarian organizations interpret localization in various ways, which can lead to confusion. Some might mix up decentralization, giving power to their local offices, with real localization, which empowers independent local organizations. This mix-up can weaken the impact of localization efforts. Some stakeholders even have doubts about the term "localization" itself. Without a common understanding, it's tough to set common goals, create coherent plans, and measure progress toward a more localized humanitarian system. The definition of localization can change depending on the country and the emergency situation, making it even harder to find a unified approach. Even the Inter-Agency Standing Committee IASC), A key body in humanitarian coordination) has defined "local and national actors" but hasn’t offered a clear definition of "localization," leaving it to each organization to interpret as they see fit, often based on their interests.

VI. The Shifting Landscape: Defining "Local" in Humanitarian Action

The term "local" in humanitarian work sounds simple, but is quite complicated, especially when dealing with displaced people and different situations. Usually, "local" means someone who lives in a certain area. However, this gets tricky when talking about people who have been displaced. Some important questions come up: Are displaced people considered local? Local compared to whom, their hometown, or where they currently live? Do both displaced people and the communities hosting them count as local?

For example, if a humanitarian worker from the US helps Afghan evacuees in the US, it becomes unclear who is the local actor. Some might say the worker is local because they are in their own country, while others might argue that the evacuees are now local too. This shows how complicated the term "local" can be in humanitarian work, especially when displacement is involved.

The definition of "local" often goes beyond just being close by and includes many groups, like community organizations, local NGOs, local government, and even some branches of international NGOs. The OECD describes localization as a process that supports and strengthens local leaders and organizations. However, there is ongoing debate about which organizations should be seen as local. Some groups, like the Global Alliance 4 Empowering Partnerships, exclude certain organizations from the Global South that are linked to international NGOs.

This raises important points about who counts as a local actor. The main question is: "How local is local?" The focus should be on supporting groups that are connected to the communities affected and are accountable to them, no matter their official status or affiliations.

VII. Localization in Practice: Case Studies and Examples

The principles of humanitarian localization are being put into practice in various ways across the globe, with both notable successes and persistent challenges. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) provides a long-standing model of successful localization, operating through its network of Local National Societies, which are recognized as vital first responders in crises. The IFRC's core vision has always centered on a network of local organizations, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, supporting each other to maximize their effectiveness in the face of overwhelming crises, with the IFRC Secretariat playing a supporting role. Country-Based Pooled Funds (CBPFs) are increasingly prioritizing the channeling of funding directly to local and national actors and ensuring their meaningful participation in humanitarian coordination mechanisms. For instance, the Ukraine Humanitarian Fund has actively worked to onboard more Ukrainian organizations and has adjusted its requirements to prioritize key localization principles such as equitable partnerships and fair overhead provision. Various initiatives, such as the Start-Fund and the Network for Empowering Aid Response (NEAR), have been established with the specific aim of channeling funding more directly to local actors and integrating them into global humanitarian coordination structures. NEAR defines localization as a transformative process focused on ensuring that local communities and their supporting response systems have the necessary resources and capacity to address the challenges they face. Case studies from a diverse range of countries, including Bangladesh, Haiti, Indonesia, Kenya, Lebanon, Myanmar, Nigeria, Philippines, South Sudan, Turkey, Uganda, and Yemen, provide further examples of the various approaches and levels of progress being made in advancing the localization agenda.  

The journey to effective localization, or making aid more locally focused, has its challenges, and various case studies show these difficulties and what we can learn from them. In Ukraine, for example, local organizations started strong in helping during the crisis, but they've faced problems in getting international aid to truly support them without taking over local efforts. Many initiatives for localizing aid in Ukraine haven't made much progress.

In Myanmar, the complex situation means that international groups need to change how they work and actively support local responses, often called "humanitarian resistance," especially because of ongoing conflict and limited access for international help. Here, local organizations are crucial for delivering aid.

After Hurricane Matthew hit Haiti, it became clear that while localizing aid has benefits, there are also limitations. It's important to recognize the role of the government and to invest in local preparedness for future disasters. There was a strong message from Haiti for international responders to focus on better coordination and localization.

In South Sudan, the long-lasting crisis shows ongoing challenges like building local capacity, ensuring local organizations have reliable funding, and improving coordination in a very unstable environment. Worryingly, funding for local groups in South Sudan has gone down in recent years, raising doubts about the real commitment to localization.

Lastly, studies called Passing the Buck, in Ukraine & Nigeria  show that local groups can deliver aid more efficiently, but they also revealed unfair practices concerning overhead costs. For example, international NGOs may share these costs with local partners, while UN agencies might keep them.

VIII. Conclusion: Moving Towards a More Localized Humanitarian Future

In conclusion, humanitarian localization represents a fundamental and necessary evolution in the way aid is delivered, with the ultimate goal of empowering local actors to lead and deliver assistance for greater effectiveness, efficiency, and long-term sustainability. While significant progress has been made in recognizing the importance of this paradigm shift, particularly through the commitments outlined in agreements like the Grand Bargain, substantial challenges persist in translating these commitments into consistent and tangible action on the ground, especially in areas such as funding and the establishment of truly equitable partnerships. The ethical and practical imperatives for advancing the Localization Agenda remain compelling, underscoring the inherent rights and capabilities of crisis-affected communities and the clear operational advantages of placing local leadership at the center of humanitarian responses.

Moving forward, several key steps are crucial for realizing a more localized humanitarian future. There needs to be a concerted effort to increase the provision of direct and flexible funding to local actors, ensuring that this funding is not only adequate but also covers essential Overhead Costs and supports the long-term institutional development of these organizations. Simultaneously, bureaucratic application and reporting processes need to be streamlined to improve accessibility for local entities. The establishment of genuinely equitable partnerships, built on a foundation of trust, mutual respect, and shared decision-making, is paramount. This requires a conscious move away from the traditional subcontractor model and a genuine valuing of the unique expertise and perspectives that local actors bring to the table. Investing in the long-term capacity strengthening of local organizations through collaborative, needs-based approaches, rather than imposing standardized solutions, is also essential for building sustainable local leadership. Greater inclusion and leadership of local actors in humanitarian coordination mechanisms at all levels must be prioritized, ensuring that their voices are not only heard but are central to the planning and implementation of humanitarian responses. A more nuanced and context-specific understanding of the term "local" is also required, particularly in diverse humanitarian contexts such as those involving displacement, recognizing the wide range of actors who can contribute to effective localized responses. Finally, a commitment to continuous learning and adaptation, based on rigorous evidence from both successful and unsuccessful localization efforts in practice, will be vital for refining strategies and overcoming the persistent challenges that hinder progress.

Ultimately, the realization of a more localized humanitarian system is a shared responsibility that requires the active engagement and commitment of all stakeholders, donors, international organizations, local actors, and governments. This necessitates a willingness to embrace a shift in power and resources, but with the shared understanding that the ultimate aim is to create a more effective, efficient, and accountable humanitarian response that truly serves the needs of affected populations and fosters lasting resilience in the face of crisis.

CONCLUSION: To wrap things up, humanitarian localization is a crucial change in how we give aid. It's all about letting local people and groups in affected countries take the lead. This makes aid more effective, efficient, and lasting. We've certainly made progress in understanding why this shift is important, especially with agreements like the Grand Bargain. However, there are still big challenges in actually making it happen, especially when it comes to funding and building fair partnerships.

The reasons to push for localization are strong, both ethically and practically. It's about respecting the rights and abilities of people affected by crises, and it just makes sense to have local leaders guide the response. To move forward, we need to:

• Give more direct and flexible money to local groups. This means not just enough money, but also covering their basic operating costs so they can grow. We also need to make it easier for them to apply for and report on funds.
• Create truly equal partnerships. This means international organizations need to stop treating local groups as just helpers and instead see them as valuable partners with unique skills and knowledge.
• Help local organizations grow stronger. This isn't about telling them what to do, but supporting them with what they need to build their skills and systems.
• Include local people in all decisions. Their voices need to be at the center of planning and carrying out aid efforts.
• Understand what "local" really means. It's not always simple, especially when people are displaced, and we need to recognize all the different local groups who can help.
• Ensure strong accountability and transparency. We need clear ways to show how funds are used and decisions are made, not just to donors but, most importantly, to the affected communities themselves.
• Support local innovation and technology. Local actors often have creative solutions, and we should help them use technology effectively, closing any digital gaps they face.

Key Considerations for the Future

Moving towards a more localized humanitarian system is not a one-size-fits-all approach. We need to remember that:

• Every situation is different: How localization works will vary greatly depending on the country, the type of crisis, and the political situation.
• We need better information: We still lack complete, globally comparable data on how well localization is working, especially regarding funding and the actual impact of local-led responses.
• It's an ongoing journey: Our understanding and implementation of localization are always changing, with constant discussions and new lessons learned within the aid sector.
• Governments play a big role: The success of localization heavily depends on national governments having the political will and creating an environment that supports local groups, including helpful laws and policies.
• Intermediaries need careful management: While international or national organizations can help get resources to local actors, we must make sure they truly add value and don't accidentally create extra barriers or take away from direct funding.
• Localization connects everything: It's increasingly seen as a key part of linking immediate aid with longer-term development and peace efforts. Involving local actors in recovery and addressing the root causes of crises is essential for lasting results.

Ultimately, making humanitarian aid more local is a team effort. Everyone involved, donors, international organizations, local groups, and governments, needs to be committed to sharing power and resources. The goal is to create a more effective, efficient, and accountable aid system that truly helps people in need and builds their ability to recover from crises.

Sources:
Global Protection Cluster – Localization – Link
Relief Web – Localization: A “Landscape” Report – Linkb
USAID – Policy for Localization of Humanitarian Assistance – Link
European Commission – Localization – Link
IFRC – Localization – Link
WFP – Localization Agenda – Link
The Centre for Humanitarian Leadership – Link
Center for Disaster Philanthropy – Localization – Link
Humanitarian Action Initiative – The Power and Politics of Localization – Link
ALNAP – Localization re-imagined: the polyculture of humanitarianism – Link

About the Author: Tahir Ali Shah is a humanitarian professional with over 20 years of experience managing protection and development programs across South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. He has worked extensively in refugee response, child protection, and humanitarian advocacy. He can be reached at tshaha@gmail.com for suggestions.