The role of intermediaries has emerged as a central pillar of the conversation on advancing locally led humanitarian action. Important questions include how funders can channel more funding through local intermediaries—both because local actors should have leadership over decisions and interventions that affect their lives and communities, and because local intermediaries have been shown to be more cost efficient, on average, than international intermediaries. In addition, since international intermediaries continue to retain important roles, questions of how these partners can focus on their comparative advantages, devolve resources and decision-making power to local levels, and build more equitable partnerships are equally salient.
The Share Trust's research across six countries brings new evidence to these questions, drawing on survey results, key informant interviews, and stakeholder convenings.
1. Afghanistan
2. Myanmar
3. Sudan
4. Syria
5. Uganda
6. Yemen
Each country study maps the landscape of local intermediaries, identifies international intermediary models that shift funding and decision-making power to local levels, assesses the comparative advantages of different categories of intermediary actors, identifies barriers to locally led action, and offers recommendations for donors and intermediaries alike. An overview report synthesizes key findings and recommendations from across the country studies, places them in the context of donor goals and tradeoffs, and, drawing upon prominent themes, introduces a new decision framework to guide intermediary partner selection for locally led action.
The research finds that the landscape of local intermediaries remains thin in many contexts, and expanding it requires deliberate investment; that international intermediaries can and do shift power and resources to local actors, especially when locally led action is built into their operating model or required by donors; that donor capacity and the tradeoffs they face among competing requirements and priorities shape progress on locally led action as much as questions of local capacity; and that localization is best understood as a matter of practice and accountability rather than actor type.
Together, the components of this work offer a diagnosis of where locally led humanitarian action stands today and concrete, actionable steps for donors and intermediaries to shift resources, power, and process closer to the communities they serve.
