Not long after the earthquakes that hit Nepal last year, international NGOs met in Kathmandu. Present at the gathering was Lajana Manandhar, the head of Lumanti, a major Nepalese support group established in 1993 to improve housing and basic services in poor communities. No one spoke to her or acknowledged her presence.

Manandhar was not surprised. In conversation later, she revealed that not only had Lumanti received no backing from major aid agencies, but several had actually rebuffed her approach.

Manandhar was frustrated that, as a result, the number of shelters they were able to construct was limited. It meant her staff’s intimate knowledge of local conditions, and local markets that could supply suitable material, was underutilised.

If the world is getting better, where next for NGOs? | Jonathan Glennie Read more

There were similar stories in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake. Coordination meetings hosted by the UN were in English – although the country is Francophone and Creole-speaking – and this prevented many Haitians from participating effectively in the recovery process.



Only a tiny percentage of donor funds for reconstruction work reached local firms and NGOs – less than 0.6% – and Haitians were largely excluded from key decisions over how the billions of dollars pledged for reconstruction were to be spent.



Today, the landscape in which international NGOs operate is changing fast, and northern-imposed attitudes and behaviours must change. To be truly effective in future, disaster response is going to have to be much more inclusive of local capabilities.



Last year some 20 international NGOs signed up to Charter4Change, an eight-point plan for engaging more effectively with local partners. The agreement included an undertaking that by 2018 each signatory would channel at least 20% of their humanitarian funding through local and national organisations in developing countries hit by disaster.



The hope is that charitable foundations, the private sector, governments and even the UN can be persuaded to follow suit. At present, only 0.2% of humanitarian aid goes directly to local and national non-government agencies and civil society organisations, out of an estimated budget of $24.5bn (£17bn).



Last month, the high-level panel on humanitarian financing endorsed Charter4Change in a report entitled Too important to fail – addressing the humanitarian financing gap (pdf). “We need more concrete commitments like these if we are to see real change,” said the authors of the study.



The message is already getting through in some places. The UK’s Department for International Development is using its disasters and emergencies preparedness programme to strengthen the ability of homegrown NGOs in a number of countries to respond to crises.



Christian Aid supports this approach, and will be promoting it at the World humanitarian summit in May, when the international community puts aid delivery under the microscope.



We have always tried where possible to empower local groups; the aid we fund in 39 countries is delivered entirely through national and local partners, who now number more than 550.



Less than 2% of humanitarian funds 'go directly to local NGOs' Read more

Local agencies are usually much more effective in responding to local crises as far as their capacities allow, only calling on national, regional or international capacity in extremis.



In Nepal, for instance, having established Lumanti’s legitimacy, Christian Aid moved quickly to help fund its work in the early phases of the disaster. Lumanti is now funded by other agencies while Christian Aid in Nepal is continuing to work with local implementing partners in other districts.

The need for this approach is clearer than ever. The rising number and complexity of emergencies means the international system is unable to respond in all settings all the time, meaning local capacities must be strengthened. This is particularly important in conflict situations, which account for 80% of humanitarian funding.

In addition, because they are already on the ground, local partners are effective first responders, getting to affected people days before the international community arrives. In Haiti and in Pakistan during the floods, our partners were able to set up food assistance several days ahead of the international humanitarian system.



Local groups can shape programmes in a contextually appropriate, culturally sensitive way because they base them on a community’s own understanding of its needs. They are better positioned to ensure accountability and respect long-term perspectives because they are closer to communities and have their trust.



The aid pie is growing, but the poorest countries get a smaller slice | Adrian Lovett Read more

The growing assertiveness of some crisis-prone countries is placing limits on where international agencies are able to operate, making it difficult – if not impossible – to obtain work permits without going through a local partner. This is a further reason for strengthening in-country capacity.

That is not to underestimate the international system’s important role, particularly in providing emergency relief in bulk. But research (pdf)shows that local capacity is significantly underutilised and undervalued, while the important advantages it can bring are often overlooked.

In funding local and national agencies, major players must strike a balance between imposing bureaucracies, rules and procedures that might deter a local recipient agency from engaging, and ensuring that funds are appropriately used. This is critical in supporting long-term community resilience.

All major agencies have checks and systems in place to ensure money does not go astray. Christian Aid believes that agencies channelling money through local partners should trust each other’s assessments of partner capacity to avoid duplicating checks. At the same time, work must continue to help local agencies meet the core humanitarian standard and ensure that aid remains principled, accountable and high-quality.

• Michael Mosselmans is head of humanitarian programme policy practice and advocacy for Christian Aid