Concept Note

12 December 2016

Developing Good Practice for Strengthening Locally-led Crisis Response

June 2016 May 2018

Participating
Project
Organisations

Project Summary
An alliance of southern and northern NGOs, donors, and UN agencies. Although the still to be
confirmed, some of the organisations that have shown interest to be involved include: Dan
Church Aid, Church of Sweden, Danish Refugee Council, Geneva Global, UNHCR, UNOCHA,
Save the Children UK, Oxfam, Paung Ku & LRC (Myanmar), NRRDO & KODI (Sudan), SDC, DFID,
ECHO and ODI.

Project Title

Developing Good Practice for Supporting Locally-led Crisis Responses

Project
Overview

Building on a previously piloted approach to support locally-led crisis response, a growing

network of national and international aid actors will participate in a coordinated, multicountry programme of action research and implementation of the approach. The aim is to
further develop and test a range of innovative methodologies for supporting locally-led
humanitarian assistance and protection responses in major emergencies including both
existing protracted crises, not least those with limited access, and future rapid-onset.
To ensure consistency in methodology, provide training and programming support, and to
capture learning and experience in an academically credible manner, the project will establish
and support a small Project Support Unit (PSU) providing a secretariat function to the
participating agencies. The PSU will partner with an academic institution to share
responsibilities for design and implementation of the research component of the actionresearch: capturing and disseminating lessons from the experiences of the different agencies
and testing the core components of the practice in different countries. The project will
thereby:
i. Refine and define a basic approach and a set of methodologies as a starting point for wider
piloting of locally-led responses. In doing so, it should build on existing and emerging
efforts and lessons with supporting locally-led responses (L2GP and several others);
ii. Develop and deliver initial training for all participating agency field teams assisting them in
developing their own detailed working methodologies, systems and alliances for piloting in
the specific contexts;
iii. Facilitate experience sharing and communication between participating agencies during
the pilots and action research;
iv. Support different modalities for systematically and rigorously capturing lessons and
ensuring documentation and production of user-friendly reports (in different languages);
v. Ensure key lessons are shared widely within wider humanitarian aid institutions in order to
accelerate learning and advocate for system change;
Reach out to more actors (donors, agencies, institutions) to join this on-going process of
collective learning that could continue well beyond this 2 year project.

Project Period

Minimum two years: June 2016 May 2018

Locations

Cambodia, Myanmar, Mali, Palestine, Syria, Sudan, and others still be finalised

Total Budget

USD 891,110

Hosting
organisation
(grantee)

Local to Global Protection Initiative (L2GP) of Danish Church Aid

Name: Nils Carstensen

Telephone:

E-mail: nic@dca.dk

1. Rationale
Over the last few years, we have seen an ever-growing recognition that the current humanitarian system
is no longer fit for purpose1. Current analyses point to ever increasing humanitarian demands (related to
climate change, natural resource degradation and the changing nature of conflicts and associated massive
displacements), while resources available for humanitarian action are unlikely to grow at a rate that can
keep up with needs. The magnitude of the combined global humanitarian crises is overwhelming, and
there is little confidence that current mainstream UN-led, INGO-dominated humanitarian practice will be
able to meet existing needs and even less so the anticipated needs. If the status quo remains, we must
expect an ever widening gap between global demands and the collective capacity to respond to them,
with desperate and far-reaching consequences.
Meanwhile, the World Humanitarian Summit consultation process has unleashed an increasingly audible
demand for more locally-led responses from a wide range of humanitarian stakeholders, including
donors.2 There is a growing body of evidence pointing to the benefits of shifting from the current
paradigm of an externally-implemented and coordinated, UN- and INGO-dominated response (that
sometimes seeks to support local actors), to one that acknowledges the central role of the autonomous
response from within the affected population in all crises. In such approaches, the role of external
agencies would focus more on enabling than on direct implementation. External interventions would
seek to strengthen existing and emergent national and locally-led responses, building on the potential of
local and national systems (social, economic, political, environmental) to respond to crises and filling gaps
by providing relevant resources, technical skills, organisational and coordination capabilities3. The focus
would be on local government and local people, working alongside parallel efforts to ensure greater
capacity of national governments where feasible, e.g. enhanced 'emergency' safety nets programmes.
Box 1 Key strengths of local autonomous crisis responses by affected populations
Rapid, at scale
Highly responsive to different felt needs, contexts & opportunities for local solutions
Highly flexible and adaptable to changes over space and time
Holistic and integrated: enables engagement to basic survival needs, self-protection, livelihoods, rights,
even conflict transformation
Much more cost effective than externally implemented responses
Investing in local economy, capacity, skills, agency strengthens longer term resilience and related
multiplier effects for decreasing vulnerability medium and long-term
Psycho-social and trauma-healing benefits from local agency and cultural sensitivity
Sometimes the only option (in conflicts and areas where external agencies are unable to operate)
Can be strengthened and supported by external assistance

See for example: The Humanitarian Emergency Response Review March 2011 ; Disaster Emergency Preparedness Programme
(DEPP) Business case and intervention summary DIFD, March 2014 ; Humanitarian Funding, Global Humanitarian Assistance,
September 2014 ; and the website for WHS 2016 on https://www.worldhumanitariansummit.org
2
See for example ECHO's Towards More Effective Global Humanitarian Action: How the EU Can Contribute 15-06-2015
Consultations leading up to the Summit have provided the opportunity to gain perspectives from different regions of the world.
As a result, three main priorities have been highlighted: the need for humanitarians to protect and preserve the dignity of people
affected by conflict and disaster; a call to find innovative and sustainable ways of meeting people's needs; and a demand from
the global South to 'localise' humanitarian response by strengthening local, national and regional capacities to prevent, manage
and respond to crisis. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/fr/document.html?reference=EXPO_STU(2015)549048
3

Visit the Start Network website on http://www.start-network.org;

Source: ODI, IFRC, IRIN, L2G to name a few

However despite the growing rhetoric in support of system-change that maximises impact of local efforts,
there is still little practical guidance for humanitarian organisations - whether national or international,
NGO or UN, implementing or coordinating or funding on how to actually go about strengthening locallyled crisis response in practice. Many agencies are struggling to understand what a locally-led response
looks like; how to design and implement interventions that can support it especially at the scale and
speed needed to save lives even in the largest of rapid-onset emergencies and how to link locally-led
responses to international agencies assistance efforts for needs and capacity assessments, assistance,
and coordination.
Perhaps the closest we currently come to humanitarians' promoting local ownership and participation is
in the area of disaster risk reduction and preparedness. Recent manuals on Participatory Capacity and
Vulnerability Analysis5 (prompted by increasing awareness of the consequences of climate change) seek
to encourage communities to identify the preparatory actions that they can take to reduce the negative
impact of potential natural disasters. However, these approaches still stop short of promoting locally-led
and coordinated protection responses once a crisis has happened, leaving the existing default of
internationally-led disaster relief unchallenged. Despite the demand for change, the status quo of
externally-implemented humanitarian intervention continues to dominate.
A number of northern and southern NGOs, UN and donor agencies have expressed their interest to
participate in a process expressly designed to respond to this pressing need for developing and
institutionalising a new praxis. This project will support them to introduce and test practical working
methodologies, systems and capacities needed to maximise impact of locally-led crisis responses that are
rapid and scalable. This action-research will be integrated in to their on-going humanitarian and
protection interventions in a range of countries and contexts, including both protracted and rapid-onset
crises. The design of the core starting approach to be tested will be informed by their collective
experiences of supporting locally-led responses, drawing in particular from areas where international
access has been constrained (e.g. Cyclones and conflicts in Myanmar, the Ebola crisis in West Africa, civil
war in Sudan and Syria6). A basic set of inter-connected components are seen to be especially relevant: a
sustained process of rapid inquiry and learning by doing within the affected population itself,
accompanied by the immediate identification of and micro-grant support for self-help initiatives7,
household cash transfers, complementary in-kind goods and services, local coordination systems and
wider institutional linking (see Annex 1 for more details).
This project recognises that other programmes are underway with similar aims (e.g. the START Network,
CaLP, SPHERE, Charter4Change, ADESO and others, southern and northern) and will actively develop
opportunities for collaboration and synergy.
2. Objectives and core approach of the proposed project
4

See for example Overseas Development Institutes' Humanitarian Practice Network (group) series on same subject
(July 2015, March 2015, September 2014, , IFRC's World Disasters Report (2015), World Bank Rapid Social Response
Programme (2014), and Local to Global Case Studies (2008 to present). Suisse Development Cooperation has
recently commissioned a Practice and Literature Review on Locally-led Responses to better define this list (delivery
date January 2016).
5

See for example: ACF s Practitioners Manual for field staff: Participatory Risk, Capacity and Vulnerability Analysis(ACF 2012);
or Oxfams Practitioners Guide: Participatory Capacity and Vulnerability Analysis(Oxfam 2012)
6

The Local to Global Protection Programme has been documenting some of these experiences to date; see
www.local2gloabl.info for more detail
7
Usually ranging from cash for immediate survival needs, e.g. food or medical supplies, to transport, e.g. outboard
motors or infrastructure, e.g. rebuilding essential bridges.

The overall objective of this project is to accelerate institutional learning on how best to support and
strengthen locally-led crisis responses in order to promote the wider adoption of such a practice into
mainstream emergency planning, implementation, coordination and funding. The project will link with
and contribute to a wider body of practice working for a fundamental and systemic change in the way
humanitarian assistance and protection are currently provided.
To this end, a structured process of multi-agency action-research and implementation will be supported
for an initial period of two years. A group of national and international agencies will work from a basic
core approach (see Box 2 below and Annex 1) and a set of guiding principles for supporting locally-led
crisis responses at scale. Adapting these to fit their local contexts, participating agencies and their
partners (governmental and non-governmental) will introduce them into their on-going humanitarian
assistance and protection programmes to test and refine the mix of methodologies and systems that
enable locally-led crisis responses and protection planning in situ. Between them, they will test activities
that cover both the preparation for, and implementation of, crisis response programmes in which
external agencies' focus shifts from that of direct implementation to one of maximising scale, coverage,
rapidity and impact of autonomous self-help responses by crisis affected populations.
Box 2 Core components of an emerging practice for supporting locally-led crisis response:
i.
Context-specific Preparedness: working methodologies, systems, alliances, structures, and team capacities.
ii.
Participatory Action Research (PAR) as needs assessment and on-going throughout the response cycle
iii.
Delivery of rapid community (micro) grants at scale
iv.
Capacity building and support services (incl. possibility of local resource centres)
8
v.
Rapid feasibility assessment and implementation of emergency HH unconditional cash grants (MPGs)
vi.
Supply of in-kind assistance that cannot be supplied locally
vii.
Demand-led coordination and collaboration (incl. possibility of alliances & secretariats)
viii. Promoting conducive internal organisational environments
(See Annex 1 for an overview of how these components interventions work as a cohesive whole)

The project will enable the establishment and running of a small Project Support Unit (hereafter referred
to as the PSU) to provide the relevant support services to participating agencies to develop and pilot the
new methodologies in their target countries/regions, to capture the lessons generated from these
experiences, and use them to strengthen the wider evidence base justifying and informing institutional
and systemic change in humanitarian assistance and protection programming. The PSU will develop a
strong working relationship with a relevant think tank or academic institution9 to help deepen the
research aspect of the project and give greater independence and credibility to the emerging findings.
Most participating agencies will continue to raise and use their own humanitarian funds to cover the
operational costs for the emergency and protection interventions being promoted and assessed as part of
the action-research and pilots. However, it is anticipated that by being part of a collaborative action
research programme promoting local crisis response methodologies, agencies will be better equipped to
leverage funding for the core functions of a shared Project Support Unit.
The initial 2-year time frame of this project is seen as the minimum time needed to instil sufficient
confidence among all involved to continue a longer-term process of collaborative learning aimed at
increasing mainstream support for locally-led crisis responses. Whether or not the proposed PSU would
still be required after this initial 2 year catalytic phase remains to be seen, but ideally it would not: by

88

One potential output could be a 'minimum good practice for MPGs in rapid onset emergencies' building on the
ECHO funded ERC grant on Operationalising Multipurpose Cash Grants.
9
The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) will become the projects primary research and documentation partner

collaborating with other change actors, a greater momentum for system change , both at organisational
and institutional level, should be reached by then that would make the PSU redundant.
Measurable outcomes and impacts
By the end of the two year project, the following measurable outcomes are anticipated:
a) A clear evidence base established to determine how and where locally-led responses may be
effective and efficient,
b) The development of more robust working methodologies, standards and coordination systems that
are acknowledged by the participating agencies as proven components of good practice that
support and maximise impact of locally-led responses and which can be adapted and integrated into
humanitarian agencies own operational and coordination systems,
c) The participating (implementing) agencies will have started to make internal programming and
management changes needed for support for locally-led crisis response approaches to become the
basis of their humanitarian interventions,
d) The development of a "locally-led response marker(s)" tailored to the specific context that allows
the humanitarian community to measure the degree to which a given response is locally-led,
e) Dissemination of learning from the project leads to wider system recognition of the benefits and
relevance of mainstreaming a locally-led approach such that a greater range of donors, UN agencies
and INGOs and national NGOs are seeking support to adopt new methodologies, and most
importantly
f) The immediate and tangible impacts of a locally-led crisis responses in at least 5 countries that
demonstrably meet the assistance and protection needs of crisis-affected communities, where
these methodologies are being applied.
3. Proposed Project outputs and implementation
i.

The PSU puts an effective and efficient framework (structure, systems, relationships) in place for
facilitating training as well as capturing lessons from the agencies directly participating in the pilot
activities and research, as well as for linking with wider institutional processes and initiatives
supporting locally-led emergency programming. Relevant MOUs would be used to ensure that all
participating agencies are able to define their roles, relationships and contributions to the action
research. Much of this will be done in the preparatory stage prior to the start of this project. A
commissioned literature review will have identified other initiatives and processes with which this
project should relate to and possibly coordinate or collaborate with. These will include: Core
Humanitarian Standard, Charter4Change, START Network, World Humanitarian Summit, Sphere
Project.

ii. Implementing teams from the participating agencies receive the initial training, facilitation and
technical support they need to develop the working practices that are context-relevant for the actionresearch they wish to conduct as part of their own humanitarian assistance and protection
interventions.
iii. Implementing teams from the participating agencies continue to receive any further back up training,
facilitation or technical support they need while implementing new methodologies in practice, with
opportunities for cross-learning between countries/regions and resources to allow emerging
opportunities for trying new ideas in practice.
iv. Selected third party academic institutions/think-tanks are working with the project to capture the
lessons from all the different humanitarian assistance and protection interventions included in the
action research
5

v. Experiences and lessons from each of the different humanitarian interventions included in the actionresearch are captured, documented, analysed, synthesized and shared in user-friendly reports that
focus on drawing out recommendations for improved practice and lead to the 1st draft of a set of
working guidelines (inter-agency tool kit) to help organisations wishing to adopt the approach and
which provides a common language for agency interaction (and the basis for developing future
training materials and e-learning modules).
vi. Similarly, recommendations are developed and shared on how existing coordination systems,
including OCHA-INGO Cluster systems, can be helped to adapt to better support locally-led crisis
responses and the changing relationships between international, national and crisis affected actors.
vii. Participating agencies are facilitated to draw on their experiences to identify possible Locally-led
Crisis Response marker guidelines that would enable agencies to self-rank the degree to which
interventions are aiming to supporting and maximize impact of locally-led crisis responses
viii. The lessons and recommendations from the project are shared in relevant fora to strengthen the
wider evidence base that both demands and informs the institutional systems-change need for the
practice to become mainstreamed.
4 Framework for Managing and implementing the Project
The diagram below provides an overview of how the multi-agency action-research/pilots will be managed
and implemented. The Project Support unit (PSU) , comprising 3 full time staff (the project manager, a
project officer/monitor/admin support, and the lead trainer) will be hosted by an agreed organisation to
take overall responsibility for the project and ensure delivery of all agreed support services to
participating agencies. It serves as the Secretariat for the network of operational, coordination and donor
agencies participating in the project. Box 2 lists the core activities of the PSU:
Box 2 Core activities of the Project Support Unit (PSU)
1. Liaison between all participating organisations to oversee implementation of the project, facilitating
communication between stake-holders to ensure real collaboration, cross-learning and joint ownership.
2. Establish and facilitate an agreed governance structure for the 2-year test that defines the roles and
responsibilities of the country- and agency-specific implementation teams, the technical and administrative team,
and the alliance of agencies at HQ level influencing global agency and inter-agency strategies to support locallyled humanitarian responses.
3. Provide initial orientation and training to all participating organisations as required and facilitate them to work
from the basic agreed standard approach (see Annex 1) to develop and launch their own context-relevant
methodologies and systems for testing approaches to strengthen locally-led crisis responses.
4. Monitor progress of participating agencies and provide additional training and support as required, making
available quick impact learning funds from the PSU where appropriate.
5. Facilitate exchange visits between team members of participating agencies as requested.
6. Ensure appropriate documentation of experience and liaise with the agencies and academic partner(s) to design
and facilitate the agreed M&E systems that will capture lessons from the action research.
10
7. In collaboration with project partners, design and roll out an effective advocacy strategy
that can inform
institutional thinking and contribute to system change
8. Managing the project grant and liaising with the donor(s)
9. Continue to expand the community of learning by actively seeking more local, national and international
organisations to get involved in any stage of the process, whether in operational action-research, coordinating,
funding, lesson-capture and learning, or advocacy for change).

10

This will include identification of key advocacy opportunities such as World Humanitarian Summit, Accountability
to Affected Populations, Local to Global Protection Initiative, north and southern media networks with interest in
humanitarian reform, IRIN

As the project grantee, Danish Church Aid (DCA) will host the PSU as part of its support to the Local to
Global Protection Initiative (L2GP). The PSU will thus be established and overseen administratively by the
L2GP while remaining programmatically guided to the agencies actively involved in the project (in line
with its secretariat nature serving the wider collective undertaking the action research). L2GP will partner
with a relevant academic organisation/think tank (most likely the Humanitarian Policy Group of the ODI)
to share responsibilities for design and implementation of the research component of the actionresearch: capturing and disseminating lessons from the experiences of the different agencies testing the
core components of the practice in different countries.
The diagram provides a visualization of how the project will be structured:
Academic Institution captures and disseminates lessons from testing
Country 1

Country 2

Country 3

Country 4

Country 5

Consultant Experts to Support and

Facilitate Locally-led Responses

Project Support Unit

PM, Lead trainer, Research Coordinator,
Monitoring and Admin officer
Lead Trainer

Advocacy to WHS and others

5 Indicative budget - see attached excel

Components
Human resources (PSU and academic partner(s)
Transport and communications
Facilities, equipment & materials
Quick impact funds for rapid action and learning (for participating agencies)
Dissemination and advocacy
Sub-total
Management and admin costs of hosting organisation(s)@ 10%

totals
(USD)
477,000
93,600
35,500
195,000
30,000
810,100
81,010

Total over 2 years (USD)

891,110