-James Ada

Introduction

Since 2009, Nigeria has faced ongoing humanitarian crises, driven by the conflict in the Borno, Adamawa, and Yobe (BAY) states of the northeast, and more recently, the rise in banditry activities in the northwest. The Nigeria Humanitarian Needs Overview 2023 reports a staggering 8.3 million people in need of humanitarian assistance including 2.0 million internally displaced persons (IDPs). The humanitarian response in Nigeria has undergone significant transformation over the past 15 years, shaped by the contributions of a wide range of actors, from local organisations to international agencies. This response has evolved notably in recent years, particularly following the commitments made at the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit and the adoption of the Grand Bargain. The 2023 Annual Independent Review emphasised that localisation of humanitarian aid has become a central focus of the Grand Bargain and continues to gain prominence across the broader humanitarian system, especially throughout 2022. This has been a consistent report dating from the fifth year annual independent review.

Conceptual Understanding

Although, there is no universally agreed definition of localisation, the signatories to the grand bargain committed to six key areas of focus summarised as “making principled humanitarian action as local as possible and as international as necessary”. This is followed by efforts to define the commitment through the localisation marker working group’s definitions paper. Yet, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) as the co-conveners of the workstream, noted that there is no single definition for localisation. But went further to describe it as “increasing international investment and respect for the role of local actors, with the goal of increasing the reach, effectiveness, and accountability of humanitarian action”. Similarly, Véronique de Geoffroy and François Grünewald made efforts to define localisation but critics of the definition insist that it is not reflective of the overall grand bargain commitment. This reflects the realities of localisation in Nigeria, lacking a common definition among actors but it is widely seen as increasing funding to local partners, adapting humanitarian aid to the local context, and involving local actors in design and implementation, while others view it as shifting leadership of humanitarian responses to local actors, and other see it as transferring capacity to local actor. Similarly, a perception of localisation as recruitment of local staff exists among other actors.

Localisation is vital for several reasons. Not to mention the empirical evidence indicating that local actors can deliver humanitarian aid programmes with 32% greater cost efficiency than their international counterparts. Local actors are often more attuned to the socio-cultural, political, and environmental contexts of crises. They have stronger networks within communities, better access to conflict and hard to reach areas, and the ability to rapidly respond in emergencies. Additionally, localisation ensures that humanitarian efforts are not only about delivering aid but also about fostering resilience and self-reliance among affected communities.

International actors have historically dominated humanitarian response in Nigeria, the focus on localisation as empowering local actors to lead humanitarian efforts has grown in recent years. With the aim of ensuring that humanitarian aid is more effective, contextually relevant, and sustainable by strengthening the capacity and leadership of local organisations, localisation of humanitarian response in Nigeria has significantly improved, even though there are no structured measures to document this progress. Despite this, local organisations in Nigeria continue to face structural and operational challenges in assuming a more prominent role in humanitarian responses.

This paper explores the policy strategies needed to improve the roles of local organisations in the localisation of humanitarian response in Nigeria. It highlights the progress, discusses the current challenges, key areas for policy intervention, and specific strategies to enhance its overall effectiveness.

Localisation efforts in Nigeria

The journey of localisation could be traced back to the post-grand bargain in 2016 and the impact of Accelerating Localisation through Partnerships (ALTP) programme funded by European Commission’s Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (ECHO) which was implemented from 2017 to 2019 by a consortium led by Christian Aid. The project impact is significant in the development of the Nigeria Localisation Framework in 2019. Similarly, localisation efforts in Nigeria gained a strong foundation from the emphasis on partnership with local actor, including government, Nigerian NGOs (local and national), and the private sector, in coordination and resource mobilisation for response enshrined in the Humanitarian Response Strategy (2019-2021).

The Nigerian NGOs have enjoyed and are still enjoying significant capacity building supports through interventions like the Lake Chad Basin Localisation and Capacity Building programme of NORCAP, the NGO Support Hub of the Promoting Local Response Capacity and Partnership (PLRCAP) programme of the Nigeria INGO Forum, the Nigeria Pooled Fund localisation project implemented by the GoalPrime organisation of Nigeria, and the implementation of 2022 – 2024 localisation strategy of  Save the Children, which is being piloted with four local partners in the child protection area of responsibility. And other multi-year development interventions like the European Union (EU)-funded Agent for Citizen-driven Transformation (ACT) programme implemented by British Council, USAID/SCALE project implemented by Palladium and the USAID Nigeria Northeast Connection programme implemented by Creative Associate International that built the institutional capacity of the Nigerian Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) implementing both development and humanitarian intervention in the NE region, among others.

Programmes like the Nigeria Local Coalition Accelerators (NLCA) approach of the ShareTrust and Warande Advisory and the increased emergence of consortium partnerships of International NGOs (INGOs) with Nigerian NGOs and among local-to-local NGOs are testaments of localisation. Similarly, terms of partnership with local actors have significantly improved, with some levels of improvement in participation of local actors in partnership decision- making.

The Humanitarian response in Nigeria has significantly experienced improvement in the area of local actors’ participation in decision-making processes, first with the Presidential Committee on Northeast Initiative (PCNI) and state government involvement in the coordination activities along with UN agencies. Then the inclusion of one Nigerian NGO’s network member in Humanitarian Country Team in 2022, which has now been increased to four representatives (considering women, youth and disability led organisations for inclusivity) equating INGO representation is pivotal to local actors’ participation in humanitarian decision making. Similar progress has been recorded at the cluster coordination level with Nigerian NGOs’ co-chairing various coordination platforms and Nigeria Humanitarian Fund’s (NHF) advisory board.

Although, globally only 13 signatories to the grand bargain including 4 donors, 4 UN agencies, 4 INGOs (only 3 are operational in Nigeria), and 1 Red Cross and Red Crescent met the target of 25% funding as directly as possible to local actors. Financial tracking services (FTS) data also reveals a decline from 2.3% in 2021 to 1.8% in 2023. But significant progress was reported in the country based pooled fund (CBPF) which reported 54% direct funding to LNNGOs with additional 5% sub-granting totalling 59% in 2023 according to the Nigeria Humanitarian Fund (NHF) Annual Report 2023 a record breaking progress. Similarly, 53 Nigerian NGOs are now eligible for NHF funding which is an addition of 16 organisation from 2022 eligible organisations.

 

Challenges of Localisation in Nigeria

Despite the clear benefits, localisation in Nigeria humanitarian response faces significant challenges that are apparently impacting the success. Local organisations in Nigeria face numerous obstacles that hinder their full participation in humanitarian response. These challenges can be grouped into several categories.

  1. Lack of Common understanding of localisation: Lack of shared understanding of localisation among actors poses significant challenges. Although the grand bargain commitment provides a useful guide to localisation, the Nigerian response is dominated by partners who are not signatories to the commitment. While staff of signatory agencies lack the requisite knowledge of the localisation, which impacts most of the agencies’ contribution to the commitment.
  2. Inequitable partnership and marginalisation of Nigeria NGOs:  Inequitable partnerships between international and Nigeria NGOs present a major challenge to the localisation agenda in Nigeria. Nigeria NGOs are often excluded from key decision-making processes, with partnership terms skewed to favour international counterparts. Rather than fostering collaboration, partnerships are still characterised by risk transfer mechanisms, where local actors are given responsibility for implementation but lack authority over budgetary or programmatic decisions. Even in consortium arrangements, Nigeria NGOs are treated as inferior and excluded from donor discussions and major grant decisions with limited visibility for the local partners in term of shared success of the programme. This marginalisation hinders their ability to take on leadership roles, weakening the impact of the humanitarian response.
  3. Lack of available localisation data: In Nigeria, there is no comprehensive localisation data to support decision-making, despite localisation being incorporated into the Community Engagement, Accountability, and Localisation (CEAL) working group, where it struggles to receive adequate attention. Without reliable data, localisation will continue to face fragmented decision-making and disjointed, reactive actions. This lack of data-driven decisions will result in inconsistent localisation efforts, ultimately limiting their impact on sustainable local response.
  4. Lack of minimum standard for partnership: Despite equitable partnership being a core commitment of localisation, there is no defined standard to qualify a partnership as truly equitable. Most partnerships are formed on an uneven power dynamic, favouring international counterparts who often exploit the resource constraints of local partners. These local partners typically lack the resources to engage qualified legal professionals to review the terms of partnership. In many cases, local partners are presented with “take it or leave it” terms, with little room for negotiation or compromise, even when they are bold enough to raise concerns.
  5. Lack of indirect cost recovery: Amidst the severe resource constraints faced by local partners, many are not provided with indirect cost recovery under partnership agreements. This exclusion is often justified by international counterparts as a risk mitigation measure, driven by concerns about audit processes or the perceived insufficiency of indirect cost recovery for themselves. Even in consortium, ICR remain with the prime partners while other international partners in the same consortium get ICR, the local partners are often neglected. As a result, Nigeria NGOs are left unable to access crucial resources needed to address internal capacity gaps or ensure the long-term sustainability of their operations. Without these flexible and vital funds on which the international partners thrive on to cover overheads, administrative costs, infrastructure, and operational sustainability, local partners would continue to struggle to maintain and build the institutional capacities that would enable them to operate independently, meet up with major donor criteria of fund, and effectively contribute to humanitarian responses. This inequitable practice continues to undermine the localisation agenda, leaving Nigeria NGOs dependent and under-resourced.
  6. Capacity Building without Adequate Funding Support: While significant investments have been made in building the capacity of local and national partners in Nigeria’s humanitarian response, a major challenge persists: the lack of funding to enable these organisations to put their newly acquired skills into practice. Many Nigerian NGOs receive extensive training, technical support, and institutional development, but are left without the financial resources necessary to translate this capacity into tangible outcomes. This disconnects between capacity building and funding hampers the localisation agenda, as Nigerian NGOs struggle to operate at full potential despite their enhanced skills which leads to the loss of the skills.
  7. Lack of a system for measuring progress:  although the National Localisation Framework provide a measurement yardstick (indicators) for tracking progress, there are no system for measurement the progress. A system like the annual independent review of the grand bargain kept the signatories in check and continued to provide useful information about the progress.
  8. Perception and trust issues: There is often a perception among international partners that Nigeria NGOs lack the professionalism or expertise to lead humanitarian responses. This perception often places a barrier in the path of Nigeria NGOs from take on leadership roles, receive direct funding, or enter into equal partnerships with international organisations.
  9. Limited Funding to Local Partners: Nigerian NGOs frequently face significant barriers in accessing direct funding from international donors, a situation that hinders their ability to play a central role in humanitarian efforts. The majority of humanitarian funding is channelled through UN agencies and INGOs, with only a small (1.4% in 2023 according to FTS) fraction reaching local actors. This financial marginalisation has far-reaching consequences for Nigeria NGOs, as it restricts their ability to expand operations, attract and retain skilled personnel, and invest in essential organisational development. Without sufficient funding, they struggle to implement long-term strategies, sustain their interventions, or build the institutional strength required for effective crisis response. The current funding structure not only perpetuates dependency on international partners but also stifles the growth and autonomy of local organisations, limiting their potential to lead in delivering humanitarian aid within their communities.
  10. Lack of effective coordination and collaboration among Nigeria NGOs: poor and ineffective coordination and collaboration among Nigeria NGOs (local and national) in humanitarian response efforts pose significant challenges. Nigeria NGOs struggle to engage meaningfully in discussions where decisions making as well as projecting common position on issues of localisation. Mostly due to limited knowledge of localisation, uneven power dynamics, and the inherent competition for resource or funding. Not to dismiss the giant stride toward improved coordination at subnational, regional and to some extent national level, common position on matters of importance in the humanitarian response like the localisation and grand bargain commitment are obvious gaps.
  11. Policy and Regulatory Constraints: The policy environment in Nigeria often poses significant challenges to the growth and operational efficiency of local humanitarian organisations. Navigating the country’s complex political landscape continues to impact the activities of Nigerian NGOs, despite efforts to foster a supportive regulatory framework. Inconsistent and frequently changing policies create an unpredictable operational climate, further compounded by the influence of political interests, which often shape the direction and priorities of regulatory decisions. The uncertainty caused by these regulatory challenges not only hampers the ability of local organisations to plan and implement long-term interventions but also undermines their capacity to effectively respond to humanitarian crises. As a result, the success of localisation efforts in Nigeria is often limited by these broader policy and political constraints.

 

Policy Strategies for Strengthening Localisation

In Nigeria, a number of policy strategies should be taken into account in order to strengthen the roles of Nigerian NGOs in humanitarian response and to drive effective localisation. These strategies address the key challenges identified and aim to create an enabling environment for local actors to lead, implement, and sustain humanitarian efforts.

  1. Establish a Common Understanding of Localisation: The humanitarian country team should consider developing a comprehensive, clear guidelines, and practical resources as well as standards to promote a shared understanding of localisation in Nigeria in line with the National localisation framework. This way it will demonstrate commitment at the highest humanitarian decision making body in country. Like the early days of humanitarian response in NE when intentional efforts were channelled into awareness of humanitarian principles and core standard among the actors, an awareness campaign programme should be design and rollout via cluster coordination platforms, subnational Nigeria NGOs network platforms to further enhance common understanding based on the developed guidelines and standards all humanitarian actors both grand bargain signatories and non-signatories.
  2. Development of Equitable Partnership Standard Framework: A Nigeria context specific equitable partnership policy framework should be development in coordination with Nigeria government and donor community, and endorsed by all humanitarian actors in country. The policy should mandate the inclusion of local actors in decision-making processes, define their roles in budgetary control, and programme design. A minimum standard for equitable partnership should be developed alongside the policy to provide a measuring yardstick. It should include transparency in terms of partnership agreements, shared decision-making power, and fair resource allocation. The regulatory frameworks should include partnership evaluation mechanisms that measures the progress annually to ensure that Nigeria NGOs are treated as equal partners. Amidst the growing consortium partnership, donors should mandate all consortium agreements to show a clearly define roles and responsibilities, and local partners should have direct access to discussions with donors to avoid marginalisation by ensuring that all partners are looped in all communication with the donor led by the prime partner. Similarly, Nigerian NGOs and their networks must be confident in recognising their value and assertive in demanding it when negotiating partnerships. They should also develop strategies to engage legal expertise, such as collaborating with non-profit associations of lawyers to seek pro bono services for reviewing partnership agreements when resources are insufficient to secure such services independently.
  3. Allocate Indirect Cost Recovery for Local Partners: indirect cost recovery (ICR) is a crucial tool for non profit organisational sustainability irrespective of its status as local or international. Hence, all donors must be intentional in ensuring that fundings to local partners address the needs of ICR by mandate all international partners to ensure that the also offer ICR to their subgrant partners. INGOs and donors should include provisions for indirect costs in all partnership agreements, ensuring local partners have the funds to cover overheads, administrative expenses, and internal capacity development. Similarly, Nigeria NGOs must raise up to demand for indirect it by developing internal partnership policies that define the terms of engagement with partners and yardstick for ICR calculation. Also, develop a transparent financial system that internal document and report how the ICR is spent via annual audit report for the purpose of accountability. This would close the gap in resource allocation, enabling Nigeria NGOs to improve their operations and build stronger institutional frameworks, fostering long-term sustainability and enabling effective participation in humanitarian response.
  4. Capacity Strengthening with Funding Support Model: To address the disconnect between capacity building and funding, humanitarian funding policies should include mechanisms that all capacity strengthening programmes for local partners include seed grant or sub-grant to the local partners to implement the skills learned and provide an opportunity for such participating organisations to access fund from the donor in the nearest future after the programme closure to ensure that the skills acquired are not lost. This can be achieved by introducing a funding window for capacity-supported NGOs to allow them to operationalise the skills they have acquired. Furthermore, local partners who meet capacity-building benchmarks should be prioritised for funding opportunities, ensuring that their enhanced capabilities translate into practical outcomes in the field.
  5. Oversight role of Nigeria Government: As the primary decision-maker, the Nigerian government must fulfil its mandate by creating a supportive regulatory environment for the effective localisation of humanitarian aid in Nigeria. This should begin with a return to the National Localisation Framework, reviewing its implementation progress and reassessing its effectiveness to guide the next steps. The government must lead efforts to ensure that all partners involved in Nigeria’s response adopt its localisation strategy by implementing a policy approach aligned with global best practices.
  6. Monitoring and Evaluation: To ensure the effectiveness of localisation in Nigeria, a robust monitoring and evaluation framework is critical to track progress, assess the impact of interventions, and identify areas for improvement. Also, it will promote shared learning and adaptation, enable Nigeria humanitarian responders to refine strategies and demonstrate value to international donors. The government must be in forefront of developing this system of monitoring as an important aspect of the localisation policy.

Conclusion

Localisation is not merely a thing of principle neither a policy priority but the future of humanitarian response that necessitate practical action. It is essential for ensuring sustainable, contextually relevant, and community-driven humanitarian responses in Nigeria. The Nigeria government, donors, and all humanitarian response stakeholders are urgently called to take deliberate steps to move localisation in Nigeria from a mere principle to practice by immediately addressing these persistent challenges. This includes fostering a common understanding of localisation, increasing direct funding to Nigerian NGOs, establishing an equitable partnership framework, and ensuring that indirect cost recovery is allocated to local actors. Additionally, capacity strengthening efforts must be paired with funding models that enable local organisations to put newly acquired skills into practice, supported by a robust monitoring and evaluation system. After over seven years of the Grand Bargain, Nigerian NGOs continue to be marginalised in decision-making and deprived of the resources needed to lead effectively. The time for action is now. We must commit to a more inclusive and localised humanitarian response that empowers Nigeria’s NGOs to lead, thrive, and make a lasting impact in their communities. Let us build a truly localised humanitarian system in Nigeria.

About the author

Ada James Emmanuel with more than a decade background in development, humanitarian and peacebuilding; leading program; management, design and implementation working with diverse team. And a strong institutional capacity strengthening and organizational development expertise, he is passionate to contribute his quota towards addressing global developmental, humanitarian and peacebuilding needs.