WHS Five Years on National and local actors: Voices in the Humanitarian Wilderness?
The May 2016 World Humanitarian Summit brought together 9,000 participants. They came from 180
Member States, included 55 Heads of State and Government, 700 NGOs and CSOs, of which 350 national and
local ones, and 250 international ones, 350 representatives of the private sector, 130 representatives of the
UN agencies, funds and programmes and other stakeholders including academia, faith-based leaders, and
media. It was a culmination of an almost a two-years long multi-stakeholder process, costing millions of
Many more local and national CSOs took part in the regional consultations process, prior to the Summit.
Globally, the largest number of organisations engaged in humanitarian action, development, peacebuilding,
disaster risk reduction and climate change are national and local organisations. They engage on issues like
gender-based violence, gender equity, education, protection, economic empowerment, climate change,
poverty reduction, health education etc. As they mostly operate in their own societies, they obviously have a
longer-term and ‘nexus’ perspective (unless and until international aid funding forces them into short-term
However, five years after the World Humanitarian Summit, with a firm commitment to include national and
local actors “in a spirit of partnership” and irrespective of size and financial weight1, they remain the most
under-represented group in the humanitarian system, in decision making processes at local, national, regional,
and international level.
There has been a much talk about inclusion and diversity in general. The Grand Bargain itself intends “to
increase the range and diversity of partners willing to contribute”. Yet there is noticeable reluctance to open
the space for meaningful inclusion and participation of local actors, including the affected populations.
International agencies retain the power to decide who participates, how often and when. Their representation
in the Inter Agency Standing Committee for example, is only through international NGO networks. The
hierarchical system includes permanent members from UN agencies, standing invitees who are all selected
from International agencies and networks and from the office of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights
of Internally Displaced Persons. It has and continues to be a struggle to get more national and local CSOs
present, on equal terms, into e.g. Humanitarian Country Teams or even the Grand Bargain Workstream on
The most frequently used excuse is that there are so many local actors, and even national and local CSO
networks, that international actors cannot choose who might be a legitimate representative. But international
actors should not be deciding on behalf of local actors. This is patriarchal behaviour, very common in the past
but not fit for the present or the future. Nor should a requirement to be a formal signatory of the Grand
Bargain be an entry criterion. The international aid system impacts on large numbers of national and local
CSOs around the world: as impacted stakeholders, they have an intrinsic right to a voice. Isn’t that what
international agencies preach and promote in the societies they intervene in?
However, when they are allowed at multi-agency tables, for example also in advisory committees to countrylevel
pooled funds, national/local CSOs discover that majority of the time they have little ability to really
influence decision-making. Theirs remains “a voice in the wilderness and a lone voice”.2 There are different
reasons for this:
- They may remain outnumbered by international actors or are certainly overpowered by them
(notwithstanding all their proposals that talk about ‘empowering’ various types of local social groups).
- The Northern jargon-led discourses do not speak to how national and local practitioners think and
communicate, just as the energy, time and money devoted to conforming to the international relief
sector’s way of operating seems a massive distraction to them, from what is needed in a more ‘real’
- Whether their observations, suggestions or concerns are captured in meeting minutes, depends
heavily on who holds the pen, and who approves the final version.
- The international aid system is no longer based on shared humanity and solidarity; rank and status
play out strongly.
The Diagram visualises the status pyramid. In the international system.
Greater power in the international aid systems bestows higher rank, and greater assumed credibility. It
manifests itself in different ways. Here are three easily observable instances of status-in-action.
- There is an intrinsic doubt about the integrity and professional competencies of individuals working
for local CBOs, NGOs or CSOs. But when they become a staff member of an international agency,
somewhat miraculously they suddenly gain integrity and professional competencies. During largescale
surge in Level 3 emergencies, hundreds, even thousands of staff of national/local organisations
get this swift quality upgrade.
- Thanks to this upgrade, that same person who is now staff of an international agency, will experience
that when in an interagency meeting s/he makes the same point as when s/he was working for a CBO
or local/national NGO before, s/he will now be more attentively listened to and taken seriously.
Working for an international agency immediately bestows higher credibility and greater willingness to
be listened to. (Evidently, an international staff member of the same international agency, has even
higher rank and therefore higher intrinsic credibility.)
- However, when a national staff member of an international agency subsequently returns to work with
a local agency or sets up his or her own NGO or CSO, s/he will automatically lose much of that intrinsic
credibility and be confronted again with the generic shadow of doubt that is cast over local agencies.
This is not a product of imagination. Many who have experienced it and testified to it.3 When this plays out in
a context that experiences a strong internationalisation i.e. influx of and dominance of international agencies
over strategic and operational decision-making, this too ‘shrinks the space’ for national and local CSOs.
The UN, overall, is not an ally: Increasingly, functions and authority are being passed to UN-led structures.
While there is a role for the UN and UN agencies can add much value, they are too often driven by their own
institutional (growth) interests, and/or the agendas of member states. They are not regularly acting as
agencies ‘for and by’ the people, and systematic enablers of voluntary, people-driven initiatives.
Let us face up to it: The governance structures of the international relief sector are anything but inclusive,
diverse, democratic. They encourage monoculture rather than biodiversity.
Coming in from the wilderness
As the new Grand Bargain 2.0 is being negotiated there is an opportunity to transform the inequity in the
humanitarian aid structure4.
- Currently there is discussion about providing one seat for local actors in the Grand Bargain facilitation
group. There has been no process of consultation around this and this will again be act of tokenism.
The right thing to do would be to have equitable number of representatives of local actors to the
number of international actors and sectors represented. This will ensure that in the decision-making
processes local actors would not be easily outnumbered. This is no different from the insistence of
international aid agencies on seeing gender parity: fairly equal numbers of men and women at the
- The Facilitation Group has developed a proposal around “caucuses”, which involves relevant and
concerned Signatories - “coalitions of the willing” - that agree to monitor, drive and encourage
progress on specific commitments at the Political level. Self-appointed “champions” would take up
specific actions from the Grand Bargain 2.0 framework and proactively and independently recruit
other key stakeholders5. We see this kind of “exclusive” caucuses, “coalitions of the willing” concept
as not the most promising structural process to realize the commitments. It will create even more silos
then even the existing structure and runs contrary to the commitment to diversity, inclusion and
equity. We need to move forward to a structure that provides greater drive and accountability for
achieving the targets with the expectation that all signatories should form part of the Coalition of the
Willing. A mechanism should be created to enable local actors to engage the donor signatories and
political leaders for discussions on issues, concerns, challenges that may need political actions as well
as discuss good practices, studies and analysis that could form as basis in making policy actions to
strengthen capacity of all signatories to realize GB commitments and targets.
§ A new Eminent Person for the Grand Bargain has just been appointed with the hope that he will
mobilise stronger political engagement to put its commitments into action. His background is in
Western politics, the UN and with a big INGO. It is not clear yet if, when and how the EP will reach out
to local actors to understand their challenges and thereby making the dialogue a two-way process.
Perhaps the so-called ‘Global South’ needs to appoint its own Eminent Person(s) to get a level playing
- All the Grand Bargain workstreams remain dominated by international actors as co-conveners; the
only role for local actors is as members of workstreams or sub-groups. Some of the co-convenors have
been functioning as gatekeepers of the workstream they are responsible for. Their functioning lacks
democratic values and the localisation spirit. Yet, in the absence of an appraisal process, they continue
being co-convenors year after year, and thereby become a barrier to the process they were expected
International aid actors have committed to “reinforce rather than replace local and national capacities”. That
cannot happen unless they are ready to take a step back where they dominate. At the same time, national
and local actors need to step in and step up. They need to organise their internal processes to determine who,
on their behalf, should join in these forums and platforms, and what is required of them. Such individuals need
to come from independent, national or local, organisations that are not beholden, financially or otherwise, to
international aid. And they need to gain and maintain the trust of a broad section of local and national actors.
They should be in regular communication with multiple local and national actors, which is technologically very
easy today. They need to inform about upcoming agendas and consult beforehand, and subsequently report
back. As most national and local organisations do not get the quality financing that aid donors grant
international agencies, their organisations may not be able to provide them with the time and practical
support they may need to be able to do this. Broader network support, and even some international finance,
may be needed here.
It is high time the international aid sector as a whole, and the relief sector in particular, becomes more
inclusive, diverse and democratic. The credibility of the ‘new’ Grand Bargain depends on it.
Action For Development
Arab Renaissance for Democracy and Development (ARDD)
African Woman and Youth Action for Development (AWYAD)
Coastal Association for Social Transformation Trust (COAST)
Community Healthcare Initiative
Community World Service
Fondation Communautaire Haïtienne - ESPWA
Global Mentoring Initiative (GMI)
Humanitarian Aid International (HAI)
Zambia Social Forum
North-East Affected Area Development Society (NEADS)