We, Ukrainian civil society organisations, have been working in a full-scale war for almost three years. In 2022, we published our first open letter “If not now, when?” to international organisations and donors who sincerely want to help Ukraine. We have to admit that sincere desire and available support are not enough.
According to the 2016 Grand Bargain document, international funds committed to localising 25% of their resources. This is a step that could have a significant impact. But where are the results? The time for talk and declarations of commitment is long over. Local organisations are still in a position where they are forced to deal with the consequences of attacks on their territory and simultaneously prove that they can be trusted and their proposals are worthy of attention.
The effectiveness of humanitarian response in Ukraine is attracting more and more attention, and for good reason. According to the study “Shifting Responsibility: The Economics of Localising Aid in Ukraine”, local partners implement programme budgets 15.5% more efficiently if they have sufficient funding to cover administrative costs. At the same time, UN agencies have 17 times larger budgets due to the cost of international staff.
Read also: Recognition of educational results of Ukrainians from the temporarily occupied territories: a step towards equal opportunities
These findings highlight the need for UN agencies and international NGOs to reform their budgets and approaches to significantly increase resources for local organisations. While the role of the UN in previous development programmes has been prominent. However, the current context of war requires a reorientation of priorities and a reduction in spending on activities that can be carried out by local organisations for much less.
Changing the distribution of power within the sector, introducing new funding and coordination mechanisms, is a multi-layered process that requires the involvement of many parties. The complexity of this problem should not be an excuse for inaction. Dialogues about supporting local partners, organisational development and the need for change turn into information noise and budget exploitation when there is no real action for localisation. We will no longer be satisfied with mere references to “localisation” in publications or during INGO presentations.
The biggest obstacle is the lack of transparency. We cannot determine exactly how many resources have been localised because the UN and most INGOs do not see it necessary to report to the Ukrainian population. It is difficult for us to get specifics from the international community, to share responsibility. At the same time we see the term localisation turning into another populist slogan to get more funding from donors who obviously can not fund local organisations directly. This creates mistrust and makes it impossible to monitor progress.
We still emphasise the implementation of all the points from the previous letter, but here are some new principles that you can use to stand in solidarity with local organisations.
Read also: (Non)educational loses
Target aid evenly to meet existing needs
Most donors focus on the needs of the eastern and southern regions, offering funding primarily for them. But the central and western regions are also hosting internally displaced persons (IDPs), building rehabilitation centres and providing hospitals. Demand for early recovery programmes in these regions has increased significantly.
Review your operations and use your advocacy resources to ensure that donors consider all needs, including those beyond the immediate humanitarian response.
A significant decrease in support for IDPs compared to the first months of the war motivates many to return to dangerous areas. The number of humanitarian needs in the frontline areas is not decreasing, but increasing due to the lack of shelters, evacuation programmes and psychological support. Is it fair to create dependency to extend contracts at the expense of those who may lose their lives?
Read also: National security and access to information in times of war: how to find a balance?
Transparency and access to solutions
Ukrainian organisations have irreplaceable expertise not only in identifying needs, but also in participating in working groups that are called upon to make key decisions. Currently, it is almost impossible to get into discussion panels or working groups at the international level, such as the Grand Bargain working groups.
The number of Ukrainian organisations that have leadership roles in clusters, are elected to committees to shape humanitarian programming, or are invited as consultants to projects is depressingly low. Local representatives should be the majority in these roles, not the exception.
Provide space and reimburse expenses for Ukrainian organisations to engage in international dialogue. Ensure that every decision, discussion, or project you implement for Ukraine includes the voices of the people it targets.
Read also: Shulyak: IDPs make a difficult choice when faced with a dilemma: to live under occupation or in poverty without state support
Share responsibility and risks
Requirements are often not appropriate to the Ukrainian context. Contracts and terms and conditions are usually drawn up in accordance with the laws of the country where international partners are headquartered. This forces local partners to operate within the framework of both Ukrainian legislation and additional requirements from other countries related to donors, foundations or international NGOs, which creates significant difficulties and time-consuming.
Complexities with tax codes, unrealistic requirements for contractors and irrelevant wording delay the process. Enshrine your localisation intentions in your contracts with local partners. If you trust your due diligence process to local partners, allow them to use their own policies and procedures in their work, rather than the unrealistic policies of an international organisation in the Ukrainian context.
Share non-business integrity risks with your local partners. For example, currency fluctuations, health insurance and staff safety, losses due to war, infrastructure damage. Pilot new projects and test more flexible approaches without leaving the responsibility for finding solutions on the shoulders of your local partners.
Read also: East SOS: withdrawal of IDP funds is a threat to human rights
Prioritise sustainability over convenience
We need long-term partnerships (two years or more) for stable and effective work. Instead, international organisations often choose short-term projects (up to six months), forcing local NGOs to spend resources on a constant search for partners. At the same time, INGOs add to their workload through numerous audits, verifications, and planning.
You say that long-term partnerships carry risks, but don’t these risks outweigh the costs of frequent contract reviews and renewals? The situation is complicated by the lack of budgets for organisational development, which means that local partners do not have funds for staff after the project ends. Administrative and development budgets should become the norm, not a gesture of goodwill.
Communicate your policies on supporting local partners, and consider what they are left with after the end of the cooperation. Collaborate with local organisations to lobby for long-term projects — this will reduce the organisational burden on all parties.
Read also: When will the money for free meals come to schools?
We want to see solidarity through action
We urge international partners to prioritise the results of their work in Ukraine over the expansion of their operations or achievement of internal localisation goals. As local actors, we will advocate for a sustainable local response system, not just help you fulfil your localisation ambitions.
Become an advocacy partner that opens doors for local organisations, rather than one that creates new bureaucratic regulations. There is no point in hiding the fact that international organisations have more power, resources and access to the media space. We urge you to become our allies in the fight for the future of our country.
Instead of formalities and populism, we want to see concrete actions that support local response. Remember: every day of inaction costs lives. For us, this is not just another conflict – it is a war that defines our existence. And we will not allow it to be ignored.
Read also: Ukraine is the most mined country in the world — the environmental impact of the Russian invasion
