What's in and what's out for humanitarian action

The Global Partnerships Conference was part stocktake, part signalling and part political staging.

It took stock of aid’s role in a world of accelerating instability, signalled a shift from traditional grant-making towards an investment-driven model and quietly – too quietly? – set the tone for the UK’s G20 presidency in 2027.

The conference reflected the current moment for humanitarians: frustrated, fervent and slightly frazzled.

Borrowing a device from a Comic Relief conference video, we reflect on what’s out, what’s in and what it will take to transform humanitarian action if it’s going to meet this moment.

What is out: The fiction of localisation. Ten years on from the World Humanitarian Summit, the localisation agenda remains underdelivered. “It’s neither grand nor a bargain”, as one participant put it. Language around direct funding, participation and partnership is now mainstream. But the interpretation has often been self-serving, and outcomes remain weak. The system continues to treat local actors as implementers rather than decision makers. It draws on them for access, data and legitimacy, while control over resources and strategy sits elsewhere. As one donor quipped, the narrative that local organisations are risky and non-compliance is not assurance; it is embedded structural inequality.

What is in: A more assertive local-first position. Locally-led humanitarian action can no longer be framed as a moral add-on. It must be viewed as a practical and systemic necessity – critical to stability, legitimacy and effectiveness. The evidence is hard to ignore. Locally-led responses reach people faster: 95% of people supported by locally-led projects described them as timely compared to 53% of people supported by internationally-led [HP2] ones. Locally-led responses also score higher on quality and accountability: 87% of people supported rated them as “excellent” and 98% as “very fair” – roughly double the ratings for INGO-led work. Beyond performance, a deeper shift is underway. Governments – from Somalia to Lebanon to Syria – are attempting to exit the “humanitarian trap”, rebuilding domestic financing through taxation, private sector engagement and diaspora investment. Meanwhile, civil society actors are reshaping legal environments and expanding space for women-led and refugee-led organisations, even as civic space shrinks.

What it takes: Stop talking, stop tweaking and start transforming – practically and substantially. The focus needs to move away from improving existing tools towards building systems that enable local organisations to hold real authority over resources, decisions, risk and evidence. We must move from system shifting, governance realignment to decentralised and democratised operations, which include data, finance and national delivery capacities. In that model, international actors enable, they do not control.
What is out: Late and reactive disaster response. We continue to respond after crises escalate. This is despite having the data and tools to act earlier – and in ways that put communities in the lead [HP3] . Around 35% of crises are predictable, yet less than 1% of humanitarian funding is allocated to anticipatory action. Reliance on shrinking, grant-based ODA is increasingly misaligned with reality. Private actors – insurers, corporations, philanthropies – are ready to share risk and capital. The question is on what terms.

What is in: Acting ahead of crises. The shift is towards anticipatory action, pre-arranged finance and risk transfer. Investments in anticipatory action generate strong returns while reconfiguring power. They draw on national data and systems, enabling governments and local organisations to lead decisions on allocation, design and delivery. They strengthen resilience while saving lives. Private capital is also entering the space, but it must be shaped to align incentives and avoid reinforcing existing inequalities.

What it takes: A different financing logic, particularly in fragile states. Ultimately, this is about how we make the best use of limited money. Scale disaster-risk finance and pre-arranged mechanisms for predictable shocks. Use grants catalytically – to absorb risk and unlock wider funding. Deploy concessional and private finance where risks can be managed. This is not about replacing aid. It is about making it work harder, with a relentless focus on impact, not instruments.
What is out: A narrow view of pooled funds. Through the Humanitarian Reset and donor strategies, there is a growing push to use UN-managed pooled funds as the primary vehicles for reform.But what remains under-recognised and under-capitalised are civil society pooled funds, particularly those that are locally led or governed.

What is in: Backing locally led pooled funds. Local civil society funds are already reaching communities others cannot. They build trust with women, youth, displaced populations and survivors of violence. They operate in high-risk environments with limited resources – and still deliver In Bangladesh, a new NGO–MFI Resourced Pooled Fund draws on microfinance profits as a sustainable funding base. In Lebanon, six organisations have launched a locally led pooled fund in response to escalating conflict. In Haiti, a women’s fund is protecting frontline organisations following major cuts. In Myanmar, the local Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund has helped people “step up” economically and reduce cycles of debt. These are not pilots. They are functioning systems, rooted in local knowledge, relationships and legitimacy.

What it takes: Donor investment to build, fuel and strengthen those funds. The answers are already here, articulated by humanitarian donors themselves. Provide predictable, flexible, direct funding, reduce earmarking and volatility, harmonise reporting and compliance requirements, align risk frameworks across donors, cover real administrative and operational costs, invest in long-term organisational capacity and peer learning. Much of this is operational, requiring a laser focus on the interoperability between formal and informal systems. But it is also a matter of seeing the problems with new eyes.
What is out: Talking about change as something within the international system’s control. Local organisations, diaspora systems, faith-based networks and mutual aid are not waiting to be invited into crisis response. They are already there. They are present before a crisis becomes internationally visible. They remain when international attention moves on. They understand the communities, risks, relationships and realities on the ground because they live them every day.

What is in: Recognising that change is happening. And it is full of innovation, solutions, expertise and evidence. This is about centring local civil society, not merely for information, access and as vehicles for legitimacy and trust, but as active agents of leadership, innovation, efficiency and sustainability. There are good examples of international partners and donors trying to work differently. The problem is not a lack of solutions, but our failure to recognise and use them.

What it takes: An honest reset andlook at the humanitarian system we have built. It was created by people with good intentions, but much of it was designed for a different time and reality. Today, crises are more complex, resources are more limited, and local actors are leading responses every day. What local civil society needs from donors, UN agencies, INGOs and international partners is not sympathy, but solidarity, trust and practical support. Failing to recognise and support that change reflects our inability to read the room.