A FielLevel Perspective: My Consortium Experience - Reflections from Yemen, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Iraq on what truly works and what doesn't.

 Tahir Ali Shah

In the field of humanitarian work, where emergencies develop rapidly and no single organization can address all needs independently, consortia have become a popular method for delivering aid. A consortium involves multiple humanitarian or development organizations, often NGOs or UN agencies, coming together to work on a common project, typically funded by a major donor. These agencies formally agree to collaborate, usually with one organization taking the lead to coordinate efforts and serve as the primary contact with the donor. This approach is commonly employed in conflict zones, refugee settings, and areas facing prolonged crises, such as Syria, Yemen, Somalia, or Bangladesh. The central idea is straightforward: by working together, organizations can combine their strengths and resources to reach more people and create a greater impact.

There are several compelling reasons to work in a consortium. The most obvious advantage is that it allows agencies to broaden their reach and impact. Each organization brings its own expertise, whether in food assistance, clean water, education, or health. By collaborating, they can offer more comprehensive support to communities in need. For instance, in Somalia, the BRCiS consortium consists of several NGOs working together to provide health, water, cash, and livelihood services in remote areas. By coordinating their efforts, they avoid duplicating services and ensure that no community is overlooked.

Another significant benefit is the ability to share resources. When organizations join forces, they can share offices, vehicles, monitoring tools, and even staff, increasing project efficiency and saving costs. For example, rather than each agency hiring its own driver or renting its own meeting space, they can pool their resources. This cooperation is particularly advantageous in remote or insecure areas where access is challenging.

Consortia also create opportunities for sharing knowledge and skills. One organization might excel in community outreach, while another may utilize innovative digital tools for tracking aid. In a consortium setting, these tools and ideas can be shared, enabling participants to enhance their programs. This often fosters greater innovation and learning, benefiting not only the current project but also future initiatives.

Working together in a consortium provides organizations with a stronger collective voice when engaging with donors, governments, or other stakeholders. Instead of one agency advocating alone, a group of organizations can unite to push for better policies or more flexible funding. This unified voice is particularly influential in negotiations for access in conflict zones or advocating for the rights of refugees.

Moreover, consortia typically have more effective systems for monitoring and accountability. With multiple partners involved, there is increased cross-checking, transparency, and careful planning. Donors often require robust reporting systems when funding consortiums, which enhances the tracking of results.

Consortium Work: Benefits and Pitfalls in Yemen, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Iraq

Category	Pros	Cons	Field Snapshot (Yemen, Pakistan, South Sudan, Nigeria, Iraq)
Impact & Reach	Wider geographical and sectoral coverage	Hard to maintain consistent quality across all locations	Nigeria: Health and nutrition consortium expanded coverage from 6 to 22 LGAs in 18 months, but 4 had below-average service due to uneven capacity.
Resources	Shared logistics, finances, office space, tools	Tensions over allocation and indirect cost recovery	Yemen: Joint warehousing and transport saved $1.2M annually, but delays in fuel disbursement disrupted mobile teams in 3 governorates.
Expertise	Combines specialized skills and deep local knowledge	Disagreements over approaches, competing standards	Pakistan: WASH partner introduced a new chlorination method that cut disease incidence by 37%, later adopted by the whole consortium.
Decision-Making	Broader input, collaborative planning	Slowed decision-making, bureaucratic layers	Iraq: 38% of operational decisions took more than 2 weeks due to back-and-forth between the lead agency and sub-grantees.
Visibility & Advocacy	Stronger donor and government engagement	Branding conflicts, unequal credit	Nigeria: Donor communications gave 80% visibility to the lead, though 65% of the fieldwork was done by local NGOs, creating frustration and dropouts.
Accountability	Better checks and cross-monitoring	Blame-shifting when issues arise	Yemen: When a major fraud case occurred, sub-partners bore the brunt of donor sanctions, despite poor oversight from the lead.
Learning & Innovation	Exchange of tools, practices, and digital systems	Innovation slows under rigid reporting or approval lines	Pakistan: Local partner's mobile data app was adopted across 3 consortia in 2 years, but only after a 9-month approval delay.
Staff Morale	Joint trainings and exposure to diverse teams	Disempowerment and hierarchy frustrations	Iraq: 52% of staff reported they had “low influence” in planning meetings, especially those from smaller or local orgs.
Sustainability	Potential for longer-term partnerships and system-strengthening	Partnerships often dissolve post-project	Nigeria: Only 3 of 11 consortia had a structured transition or localization plan, and one ended without formally informing all sub-partners.
Risk Management	Shared security briefings, joint contingency plans	Unequal burden when crises occur	NE Syria: Joint access planning reduced staff incidents by 30%, but when a checkpoint attack halted operations, the local partner was left to negotiate alone.
Reporting & Compliance	Robust M&E, donor-mandated standards	Overload of forms, competing templates	Yemen and Iraq: Field staff reported spending 40–50% of their time on documentation, limiting direct work with communities.

Despite these advantages, consortiums also present several challenges. One common issue is power imbalance. Usually, one organization assumes the role of the lead agency, managing the budget, reporting to the donor, and often controlling the decision-making process. This can create tensions if smaller partners feel marginalized or excluded. In some instances, the lead agency may garner most of the credit, even though the on-the-ground work is performed by others.

Bureaucracy is another challenge. With multiple organizations involved, there are often more meetings, forms, and regulations. This can prolong decision-making, particularly in emergencies where quick action is critical. Staff members on the ground may feel frustrated by having to wait weeks for approvals or by attending lengthy coordination meetings.

Another problem is that organizations often have different goals, strategies, and ways of working. While they might agree to work together for one project, their overall missions may not align. This can lead to disagreements about priorities, especially if funding is limited. In some cases, competition creeps in, with partners focusing more on their own visibility or future funding than on the success of the joint project.

There is also the issue of risk. When things go wrong, like financial mismanagement or security incidents, the lead agency often pushes the blame onto smaller partners. Risk is not always shared equally, and accountability systems may favor the lead agency. This makes it hard for smaller organizations to feel secure, especially if they lack strong legal or technical support.

Reporting is another burden. Because donors want detailed information from each partner, reporting becomes a full-time job. Field staff may spend more time collecting data and writing reports than actually helping communities. This creates fatigue and takes focus away from the real mission.

Consortia are helpful in situations where a big or complicated crisis needs a wide range of responses. This could be in large refugee camps, cities with displaced people, or areas hit by multiple challenges like conflict and natural disasters. When donors want to provide one coordinated grant or when different agencies are working together in the same location, forming a consortium can help avoid overlap and make everything run more smoothly. It's also a good idea when local groups need to be part of the solution for lasting impact, but might not be ready to take the lead on their own. Additionally, consortia can help donors achieve consistent outcomes across different areas or sectors while simplifying accountability.

To make consortia work better, it is important to build trust right from the start. Everyone involved should agree on a clear governance structure that defines roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes. Sharing power among all partners is crucial so that every member, no matter their size, can have a say in decisions. Regular communication, transparent budget management, and joint site visits can enhance credibility and keep everyone focused on common goals. Donors should understand that consortiums are complex and allow for flexible timelines, realistic reporting, and shared risk management. Providing support to smaller partners can encourage fair participation and strengthen the local humanitarian framework in the long run.

In conclusion, consortia are not perfect, but they play a crucial role in many humanitarian situations. They are often complex and dynamic, requiring compromise, trust, and good listening among members. Ultimately, the main goal should always be to effectively and respectfully serve people in need, ensuring their dignity is upheld.

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, GBV prevention, and humanitarian advocacy. He can be reached at tshaha@gmail.com