Humanitarian Sustainability in Somalia: Why Local NGOs Must Be at the Center of Change

Introduction: The Future of Humanitarian Action Must Be Locally Led

When drought destroys a family's livestock, floods wash away homes, or conflict forces people to leave their villages, the first needs are immediate: food, clean water, shelter, healthcare, and protection. But after the emergency response, another question remains: who will continue supporting these communities when emergency funding ends? Who will help families rebuild their livelihoods, restore essential services, and prepare for the next crisis? In Somalia, these questions are particularly important. The country faces repeated droughts, floods, conflict, displacement, food insecurity, and disease outbreaks. According to the United Nations' 2026 Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan, an estimated 4.8 million people in Somalia need humanitarian assistance in 2026, while humanitarian partners are seeking US$852 million to provide life-saving support to 2.4 million people. These figures show the scale of the challenge and the importance of making every available resource count.

Behind these figures are real people: a mother trying to feed her children, a young person whose education has been interrupted by displacement, and a family that has lost its source of income after several failed rainy seasons. Responding to their needs requires more than delivering assistance during an emergency. It requires a humanitarian system that can remain present, understand local realities, maintain community trust, and continue working when international attention moves elsewhere. Local and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are essential to this effort. They understand the communities they serve, speak local languages, and often maintain relationships with community leaders long before a crisis begins. Yet their importance does not always translate into reliable funding, equal participation in decisions, or investment in their long-term institutional development. If Somalia wants a more sustainable humanitarian system, empowering local NGOs must become a central priority rather than a secondary commitment.

1. Somalia's Humanitarian System: The Challenge of Sustainability

Somalia's humanitarian response depends on a wide network of local NGOs, international NGOs, United Nations agencies, government institutions, community organizations, and donors. Each has an important role, but the effectiveness of this system depends on how well these actors coordinate their work, share resources, and build lasting capacity. One of the major challenges is the short-term nature of humanitarian funding. Many local NGOs receive funding for a specific project, location, or period. They recruit staff, deliver services, submit reports, and close the project when the funding ends. Even when a local organization performs well, it may struggle to retain trained employees, maintain its systems, or continue supporting the community without another grant. This creates a cycle in which organizations repeatedly build capacity for individual projects but struggle to develop the stable institutions needed for long-term impact.

For example, a local NGO may successfully support displaced families with food assistance for six months. During the project, it builds relationships with community leaders, identifies vulnerable households, and trains field workers. When the grant ends, however, experienced staff may leave, field activities may stop, and the relationships built with the community may weaken. If another emergency occurs, the organization may need to rebuild much of its operational capacity before responding again. This is not simply a problem for the NGO; it can also affect the speed, continuity, and quality of assistance available to the community.

The funding situation makes this challenge more serious. In January 2026, the UN and humanitarian partners announced a US$852 million appeal to assist 2.4 million people in Somalia, against a background of significant reductions in humanitarian funding.

When resources decline, organizations must make difficult decisions about which services to maintain, which locations to prioritize, and how many people they can reach. Without stronger local institutions and more predictable funding, the humanitarian system risks losing experienced staff, established community relationships, and valuable local knowledge whenever projects end. Humanitarian sustainability therefore requires a shift in thinking. Success should not be measured only by how many people receive assistance during a project. It should also be measured by whether communities become more resilient, whether local organizations strengthen their systems, whether services can continue beyond a single grant, and whether Somali institutions become better prepared for future emergencies.

2. Why Local NGOs Must Be at the Center of Change

Local NGOs are not simply organizations that deliver projects on behalf of international partners. They are part of the social and institutional fabric of Somalia. Many have worked with communities through years of conflict, drought, displacement, and economic hardship. They understand local languages, community relationships, cultural practices, and the barriers that prevent vulnerable people from accessing assistance. This knowledge is particularly valuable in areas where humanitarian access is difficult, government services are limited, or communities have experienced repeated displacement. Consider a local organization working in a district affected by drought. Its staff may already know which villages have lost access to water, which families have become displaced, which community members need urgent protection, and which local leaders can help coordinate a response. An organization arriving from outside may also provide valuable technical expertise and financial resources, but it may need time to develop these relationships. When local NGOs are supported to lead, humanitarian response can build on existing knowledge instead of repeatedly starting from the beginning.

Local leadership also supports accountability. Communities should not be treated only as recipients of assistance; they should have a meaningful role in deciding what assistance is needed, how it is delivered, and whether it is effective. Local NGOs can help establish this connection by consulting affected people, receiving complaints, explaining decisions, and adjusting programs when community needs change. However, local organizations must be supported to perform these responsibilities professionally. Being locally based does not automatically guarantee transparency, inclusion, or good management. Strong governance, financial controls, safeguarding, independent oversight, and community feedback systems are essential for every humanitarian organization, regardless of its size or nationality.

The case for localization is also supported by funding evidence. Development Initiatives reported that Somalia's Country-Based Pooled Fund channelled 69% of its subsequent funding to local and national actors in 2023, up from 61% in 2022, representing US$38 million. This demonstrates that funding mechanisms can direct substantial resources to local responders when their design and allocation practices support this goal. It does not mean every local NGO received funding or that all funding challenges have been solved, but it provides a practical example that can inform future reforms.

Empowering local NGOs is therefore not about excluding international organizations. It is about building partnerships in which local organizations have meaningful influence, fair access to resources, and the ability to shape humanitarian priorities. International agencies can contribute funding, specialized technical support, international coordination, and access to global expertise. Local NGOs can contribute contextual knowledge, community relationships, local leadership, and continuity. When these strengths are combined through equitable partnerships, humanitarian action becomes more locally grounded and better prepared for the future.

3. The Funding Gap: From Project Delivery to Institutional Sustainability

One of the biggest obstacles to humanitarian sustainability is the difference between funding a project and investing in an organization. Project funding pays for agreed activities over a defined period. Institutional investment strengthens the organization that must continue delivering those activities, managing resources, protecting communities, and responding to future emergencies. Both are necessary, but they serve different purposes. A local NGO may receive a grant to provide nutrition services, distribute emergency supplies, or support displaced families. Yet the organization also needs qualified finance staff, secure information systems, reliable communications, trained safeguarding personnel, effective procurement procedures, and a functioning board. These systems require resources even when they do not appear directly in the number of beneficiaries reached. If donors fund only the visible project activities, local NGOs may be expected to meet demanding compliance requirements without having the resources to maintain the systems needed to meet them.

This is not merely a Somali problem. Development Initiatives found that, in 2023, local and national actors directly received only 0.6% of the first-level humanitarian funding reported by Grand Bargain signatory donors. The same analysis estimated that independently verifiable direct and indirect funding to local and national actors represented 4.4% of the total from those signatories, while figures including unverified intermediary self-reports reached 25%. These measures use different definitions and reporting methods, so they should not be treated as interchangeable. The important point is that tracking funding through the humanitarian system remains difficult and that direct access for local organizations remains limited.

The international humanitarian community's Grand Bargain commitment set a target of providing 25% of humanitarian funding to local and national responders as directly as possible. The gap between that ambition and the independently verifiable direct funding figures shows why commitments must be translated into practical changes. For Somali NGOs, this means expanding access to direct grants, reducing unnecessary administrative barriers, ensuring fair recovery of indirect costs, and providing funding that is predictable enough to support long-term planning.

A sustainable approach should also distinguish between reasonable accountability requirements and requirements that create unnecessary barriers. Donors have a responsibility to protect public funds and prevent fraud, corruption, and aid diversion. Local NGOs must demonstrate that they can manage resources responsibly. However, repeatedly requiring every organization to build the same systems from scratch, or applying identical administrative requirements regardless of grant size and risk, can disadvantage smaller organizations without necessarily improving outcomes. Proportionate due diligence, shared training, transparent assessment criteria, and practical institutional support can help address this problem.

The central question is not whether local NGOs should be accountable for funding. They must be. The question is whether the humanitarian financing system gives them a fair opportunity to demonstrate accountability, develop the required capacity, and compete for resources on reasonable terms. Sustainability requires funding both the assistance delivered today and the institutions that will be needed tomorrow.

4. Practical Strategies for Building Sustainable Local NGOs

Building sustainable local NGOs requires a deliberate approach that combines funding reform, institutional development, stronger partnerships, and measurable accountability. It cannot be achieved through training workshops alone or through short-term projects that end before organizations can apply what they have learned. The goal should be to help capable local organizations become stronger, more independent, and better prepared to respond to future crises.

• Strategy 1: Introduce More Predictable and Flexible Funding

Donors, UN agencies, and international NGOs should increase opportunities for multi-year funding where the context and risk assessment allow it. Longer funding periods help local NGOs retain experienced staff, maintain essential systems, invest in strategic planning, and respond to changing community needs. Flexible funding can also allow organizations to adapt activities when drought, flooding, displacement, or conflict changes the situation on the ground.

This does not mean removing financial controls or guaranteeing grants regardless of performance. Funding agreements should include clear objectives, budgets, reporting requirements, and independent monitoring. The difference is that organizations should have reasonable flexibility to adjust their approach when circumstances change, rather than being forced to follow a plan that no longer reflects community needs.

• Strategy 2: Invest in Institutional Capacity, Not Only Project Activities

Capacity building should be connected to the actual needs of each organization. A small community-based NGO may need support with financial management, procurement, human resources, safeguarding, digital recordkeeping, or monitoring and evaluation. Another organization may already have strong systems but require advanced technical skills, improved cybersecurity, or support to manage larger grants.

Donors and international partners should therefore include reasonable institutional costs within project budgets and create separate opportunities for organizational development. Training should be combined with mentoring, practical implementation, and follow-up assessments. For example, instead of providing a one-day financial management workshop and considering the task complete, a partner could support an NGO to improve its accounting procedures, test internal controls, prepare financial reports, and address identified weaknesses over several months. The aim is not simply to deliver training, but to demonstrate measurable improvements in organizational performance.

• Strategy 3: Build Fair and Transparent Partnerships

Partnerships between international and local NGOs should be based on shared decision-making, clear responsibilities, and fair distribution of resources. Local organizations should participate in designing projects, setting priorities, preparing budgets, managing risks, and reviewing results. They should not be brought into a project only after its main decisions have already been made. Where international organizations receive funding and work through local partners, they should clearly explain how resources are allocated, what costs are retained, and what responsibilities are transferred to local organizations. Partnership agreements should include realistic budgets for implementation, monitoring, safeguarding, security, and organizational support. Local NGOs should also have accessible ways to raise concerns about unfair treatment without fear of losing future opportunities. Transparent partnerships can improve trust while making it easier to identify and resolve problems early.

• Strategy 4: Strengthen Local NGO Networks and Shared Services

Not every local NGO needs to maintain every technical function independently. Smaller organizations may struggle to afford specialized expertise in cybersecurity, legal compliance, financial audits, safeguarding investigations, or advanced monitoring systems. Networks of local NGOs can reduce these costs by sharing qualified professionals, training resources, procurement services, and technical support.

A Somali NGO network, for example, could establish a shared service that helps member organizations improve financial reporting, prepare donor applications, strengthen data protection, and meet common compliance standards. Organizations would retain their own leadership and independence while accessing expertise that might otherwise be too expensive. Such arrangements can be particularly valuable for smaller NGOs operating outside major cities, provided that shared services are accessible, well governed, and responsive to members' needs.

• Strategy 5: Make Local Leadership Part of Humanitarian Decision-Making

Local NGOs need meaningful representation in the structures where humanitarian priorities and funding decisions are discussed. This includes coordination forums, sector working groups, area-based planning, pooled-fund consultations, and discussions about humanitarian-development collaboration. Representation should not be limited to attending meetings; local organizations must have opportunities to influence decisions and see how their contributions affect final plans.

Government institutions, donors, UN agencies, and NGO networks should also support greater participation by organizations led by women, young professionals, people with disabilities, and representatives of underserved communities. This helps ensure that local leadership reflects the diversity of Somalia's humanitarian landscape rather than concentrating influence among a small number of established organizations. Stronger local participation can improve the relevance of programs and help identify needs that might otherwise be overlooked.

5. The Benefits and Risks of Empowering Local NGOs

Empowering local NGOs offers important benefits for Somalia's humanitarian future, but it also requires careful planning. One major advantage is continuity. Local organizations can maintain relationships with communities between emergencies, identify emerging risks, and support recovery after immediate relief activities end. When they have reliable funding and trained staff, they can respond more quickly without rebuilding their entire operational capacity for each new project. This continuity can help humanitarian resources deliver value beyond the period covered by an individual grant.

Another benefit is stronger local knowledge and ownership. Somali NGOs often understand community relationships, cultural practices, local languages, and the practical barriers people face when accessing assistance. Their involvement can help humanitarian programs become more relevant, improve communication, and strengthen community participation. Investing in these organizations can also create professional opportunities for Somali staff, retain knowledge within the country, and strengthen the institutions needed for long-term recovery.

However, localization also carries risks that should be acknowledged honestly. Some local NGOs may have limited financial controls, weak procurement procedures, inadequate safeguarding systems, or insufficient experience managing large grants. In some areas, insecurity, political pressure, conflicts of interest, and risks of aid diversion can affect operations. These challenges can damage public trust and place vulnerable people at risk if they are not managed properly. Local organizations should not be assumed to be effective simply because they are local, just as international organizations should not be assumed to be effective simply because they have greater resources.

The solution is not to withhold funding from local NGOs until they meet every requirement that larger organizations can afford to satisfy. Instead, funding should be matched with appropriate due diligence, risk assessment, independent monitoring, mentoring, and clear performance standards. Smaller grants can provide an entry point for organizations that demonstrate potential, while larger grants can be awarded as their systems and performance strengthen. Shared compliance services, transparent complaints mechanisms, independent audits, and clear consequences for misconduct can help manage risks without excluding capable local organizations.

The aim should be to establish a system in which local NGOs are trusted because they demonstrate competence, integrity, and results. Trust should be earned through evidence and supported through fair opportunities. This balance between empowerment and accountability is essential to building a sustainable humanitarian sector.

6. An Illustrative Scenario: What Long-Term Investment Could Achieve

Imagine a Somali NGO working with displaced families in a drought-affected district. It has experienced field workers, trusted relationships with community leaders, and a clear understanding of local needs. However, its finance team is small, its digital records are poorly organized, and its funding ends after each project. When a new emergency occurs, the organization struggles to retain staff and prepare the documentation needed to access another grant. Now imagine that the same organization receives a three-year partnership that combines project funding with reasonable institutional support. During the first year, it strengthens its financial controls, improves its digital records, trains staff in safeguarding, and establishes a reliable community feedback mechanism. In the second year, it improves monitoring, develops stronger relationships with donors, and expands its work with local service providers. By the third year, it has better systems, more experienced staff, and stronger evidence of its impact.

This example is illustrative rather than a report of an existing program, but it shows the difference between funding activities and building institutions. The NGO still needs project funding to provide food, water, protection, or other services. However, the investment in its systems makes it better prepared to deliver those services responsibly and respond to future emergencies.

Consider the potential scale of such an approach. If 100 local NGOs each received an illustrative annual institutional-strengthening grant of US$20,000, the combined investment would be US$2 million per year. This would be additional to the funding required for their humanitarian programs, not a replacement for it. The value of such an investment would need to be assessed through measurable improvements in financial management, staff retention, reporting quality, safeguarding, response readiness, and community satisfaction.

The lesson is that institutional sustainability does not always require enormous individual grants. It requires well-designed investment, clear objectives, adequate time, and evidence that the support is improving organizational performance. When local NGOs become stronger, the humanitarian system gains institutions that can contribute to future emergencies rather than depending entirely on temporary project structures.

7. Measuring Success: From Funding Commitments to Lasting Impact

For localization to produce meaningful change, progress must be measured beyond the number of grants awarded to local NGOs. A funding commitment is important, but it does not automatically demonstrate that organizations have become more sustainable or that communities are receiving better assistance. Donors and humanitarian partners should track the share of funding reaching local NGOs directly, the proportion of funding available for reasonable institutional costs, and the length and flexibility of partnership agreements. They should also measure improvements in organizational performance, including the quality of financial reporting, staff retention, compliance systems, safeguarding procedures, and the ability to respond to new emergencies. Community feedback should be equally important. Are people receiving assistance on time? Can women, children, older people, and people with disabilities access services safely? Do affected communities know how to raise complaints? Are their concerns addressed? Do programs respond to changing needs? These questions help determine whether stronger local institutions are translating into better humanitarian outcomes.

Transparency is essential throughout this process. Local NGOs should publish appropriate information about their funding, expenditure, activities, and results while protecting personal information and the safety of vulnerable communities. Donors and international partners should also disclose how funding moves through the system, including the amounts reaching local partners and the costs retained by intermediaries. Consistent reporting would help identify where localization commitments are being fulfilled and where further reform is required.

Somalia could strengthen this approach by developing a shared localization monitoring framework through consultation among local NGOs, the Somali NGO Consortium, government institutions, UN agencies, and donors. Such a framework could establish a common baseline, set measurable targets, and publish periodic progress reports. This would help move the localization agenda from general commitments toward practical, verifiable results.

8. Connecting Humanitarian Sustainability with Long-Term Development

Humanitarian assistance is essential when people face immediate threats to their lives and dignity. However, repeated emergencies cannot be addressed sustainably through relief alone. Somalia also needs investment in livelihoods, education, healthcare, water infrastructure, disaster preparedness, climate resilience, and the institutions responsible for providing public services.

Local NGOs can help connect these priorities because their work often extends beyond a single emergency. An organization providing emergency food assistance may also understand the livelihood challenges affecting the same households. A local education organization may see how displacement interrupts children's learning and can work with communities to support school attendance. An NGO working on water and sanitation may identify infrastructure problems that require longer-term investment rather than repeated emergency water deliveries.

This does not mean local NGOs should replace government institutions or assume responsibilities beyond their capacity. Sustainable development requires effective public institutions, accountable government leadership, private-sector participation, and coordinated support from national and international partners. Local NGOs should contribute to this wider system through their community relationships, technical expertise, and ability to identify local priorities.

The Humanitarian–Development–Peace Nexus offers a useful approach by encouraging actors to address immediate needs while also reducing the risks and vulnerabilities that create repeated crises. For Somalia, this means humanitarian and development partners should plan together, support locally identified priorities, and avoid treating every emergency as an isolated event.

Institutionalizing local NGO participation in these efforts can help ensure that emergency responses contribute to longer-term resilience. When organizations have the resources and capacity to remain engaged, they can help communities move from immediate survival toward recovery, preparedness, and greater self-reliance.

Conclusion: Investing in Local NGOs Is Investing in Somalia's Humanitarian Future

Somalia's humanitarian challenges cannot be solved by funding alone. They require a system that uses resources effectively, learns from communities, builds strong institutions, and remains prepared for future crises. Local NGOs are an essential part of this system because they bring local knowledge, established relationships, and a long-term stake in the communities they serve. The evidence shows both the urgency of the challenge and the possibility of progress. In 2026, an estimated 4.8 million people in Somalia need humanitarian assistance, while major funding reductions are limiting the response. At the same time, Somalia's pooled-fund experience demonstrates that substantial resources can be channelled to local and national actors when funding mechanisms are designed to support them.

The next step is to move beyond recognizing the importance of local NGOs and make their sustainability a practical priority. Donors should provide more predictable funding and support reasonable institutional costs. International organizations should build fair partnerships that share decision-making and resources. Government institutions should strengthen the policy environment for locally led action. Local NGOs, in turn, must demonstrate strong governance, transparent financial management, safeguarding, and measurable results.

This approach requires accountability from every actor. Localization should not become a slogan, a reporting exercise, or a way to transfer operational risks to organizations with fewer resources. It should be a deliberate effort to build a stronger, fairer, and more effective humanitarian system. Somalia's future should not depend entirely on whether an international funding cycle remains open or whether an emergency receives global attention. It should also depend on the strength of its own institutions, the knowledge of its people, and the ability of its communities to respond collectively to challenges.

Empowering local NGOs is not simply about changing who delivers humanitarian aid. It is about changing how Somalia builds the capacity to protect its people, recover from crises, and sustain progress over time. When local organizations are trusted, properly funded, and held accountable, they become more than implementing partners. They become lasting contributors to Somalia's resilience, recovery, and future.