Aller au contenu principal

Proposition from A4EP

Pays
Monde
Sources
A4EP
Date de publication

Background

The humanitarian sector has faced an overwhelming series of challenges in the twenty-first century. While the nature of these crises has shifted, and the number of people in need has grown, the sector has not managed to keep up with these changes. More and more people affected by conflict and disaster are unreached or underserved by the humanitarian sector. It has also become clear that, in a crisis, affected populations rely on many sources beyond the formal humanitarian system for assistance.

Over the last five years of signing of the Grand Bargain commitments a lot of investment has been made in research by international actors and donors into blockages and bottle necks in delivery of effective and efficient humanitarian response. More specifically many research studies on localisation have surfaced many issues and bottlenecks. It has led to the Grand Bargain localisation workstream developing specific guidance on how to ensure more equitable partnership and how the intermediaries can improve their performance and work in complementarity to the local actors, demonstrating the commitment to reinforce not replace and to ensure better and more quality funding to local responders, which ultimately would ensure effective, timely, relevant and appropriate response to the affected populations in whose name funds have been raised to show solidarity. In many reports over the last six years, gaps have been identified in intermediary performance, the latest report in December 2021 “Localisation: A “Landscape” report” to USAID from Tufts, Feinstein International Center. The particular role of intermediaries has been highlighted in “Bridging the Intention to Action Gap: the future role of intermediaries in supporting locally led humanitarian action, June 2021, commissioned by GB Localisation workstream.

KEY FINDINGS:

The existing role of intermediaries needs to fundamentally shift to better support locally led action.

a. The balance of direct implementation and intermediary roles for organisations not local to context needs to shift. The existing balance is not considered to be appropriate or fit for purpose, and international organisations in many contexts continue to inappropriately default to direct implementation.

b. The role of the intermediary, when requested or required, needs to be more appropriate and accountable. Even when international organisations act as intermediaries, many local and national organisations do not receive the support they request or believe they need to maximise their effective contribution to the humanitarian system.

c. Barriers preventing change are currently far more powerful than the triggers that will motivate change.

Change is required in three key areas to achieve a more effective future role for intermediaries. Concrete changes are required in the motivation for change; the opportunity for intermediaries to make easy choices that will effectively support change; and the deployment of capabilities that are adapted according to actor and context to ensure a fit-for-purpose contribution.