Last week, the UN launched the biggest aid appeal on record. The amount requested by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) – $20.1bn (£13bn) – is five times the amount requested just a decade ago.
Faced with escalating conflicts and disasters and a growing number of affected people, we need to ask whether current approaches to aid and development are really the most effective ways to prevent the suffering of millions of people.
The data suggests not. The number of people in need of aid has more than doubled in just over a decade, according to OCHA.
So where is the money going? Not, unfortunately, into the hands of those on the frontline. Despite existing among the poorest and most vulnerable populations, and with a unique understanding of the communities they serve, local and national NGOs received just 1.6% of total NGO funding between 2010 and 2014.
And it’s not just the amount of funding that’s shrinking; the number of organisations sharing the money is also declining. At the same time, the UN’s share of humanitarian assistance continues to grow, along with that of international NGOs – just 10 INGOs received 36% of all NGO funding last year.
Investing in prevention
Local and national NGOs have long been thought of as indispensable to quick, effective and relevant emergency response, as well as critical development work. But the localisation of aid is still resisted, at a time when local and national NGOs must address humanitarian needs within increasingly complex and protracted crises.
What’s more, when emergencies have subsided and INGOs have left, local and national organisations stay behind, helping communities and governments to rebuild lives. This is essential to developing resilience to future crises. They can apply local knowledge to solving problems, and can access populations in areas that remain beyond the reach of international agencies.
Perhaps even more importantly, the worst impacts of many crises – especially those that destroy livelihoods and wreak devastation through famine and malnutrition – could be prevented or even avoided if local and national NGOs were better equipped.
This is why donors must fund local and national NGOs directly. The current funding landscape is so mired in appraisals, assessments, projections, and estimations that local aid workers cannot navigate its complexities, or afford fundraising and grant management staff to do so.
A new funding model
The most practical way to overcome these funding obstacles is to set up a transparent and well-managed pooled fund specifically for local and national NGOs. Such a fund would put money and power into the hands of those who are often excluded from decision-making and denied the opportunity to influence and advise on how money can be better spent. This funding would also help local and national NGOs build leadership capacity and give them some room to experiment, grow and learn – opportunities INGOs had at their beginnings.
By empowering these organisations to better address man-made and natural threats early, and funding them to build local resilience, we can reduce the need to mobilise massive and costly emergency response later.
The World Humanitarian Summit in May 2016 may be the most timely opportunity to make an honest appraisal of the effectiveness of the current system to deal with the sector’s “new normal” of finite resources and unlimited challenges.
Let’s not waste that opportunity. We can put people back at the center of aid and instill a sense of humility and service that is in danger of being lost to self-interest. Local or international actors alone cannot hope to stem the tide of misery blighting more than 125 million people around the world. But by working in a fair and equitable partnership, we can hope to limit future suffering and provide shelter, sustenance and hope to those who will not be so lucky.
This originally appeared here
