Local and National NGOs: Operating in the Spaces Between

In 2025 humanitarian donor funding contracted by between 34% and 45% and international organizations and systems reacted. They have responded not only to financial reductions, but to perceptions of duplication and inefficiency. Immediate solutions have been rolled out to mitigate the financial crisis and improve public perception (e.g., staff reductions, mandate rationalization), and longer-term proposals are being debated to address a new future with less funding and higher expectations of targeted impact.

Image by Angelo Giordano from Pixabay

Among these proposals, and demands, is a genuine pursuit . While there is no single agreed-upon definition of localization, it is generally considered to be a shifting of power and leadership from international actors to local and national actors, through equal partnerships, direct funding and representation in decision making bodies. The Grand Bargain in 2016 foregrounded localization in humanitarian action by establishing commitments with targets agreed upon by major donors and humanitarian organizations.

The proposed path that localization takes in the future depends on the intentions of those currently in leadership positions in the sector. One status-quo path has the primary goal of improving efficiency for international organizations and their architecture, with national actors being an instrument to achieving that. Another path has a goal of fundamentally centering local and national actors, their systems and ways of working to lead humanitarian action, with international organizations being an instrument to that transfer.

For this latter transformative path, international actors will need to de-center themselves and look outside their international architecture. They will also need to set aside the stereotypes of local and national actors and see them as successors. This means understanding and appreciating they occupy and the diverse roles they hold in those spaces, both of which haven’t been well understood, acknowledged or legitimized. Liminal spaces have been described by Alasdair Gordon-Gibson as places where humanitarian action meets and engages with the reality of politics and power, and by Larissa Fast as roles that shift between formal and informal systems and operate at the margins of traditional humanitarian order.

This blog draws from a literature review on one segment of local and national actors, the local and national non-governmental organization (LNNGO), with a focus on South Sudan, a country with over 230 LNNGOs working to address humanitarian needs, pursue development and foster peace. This case provides a glimpse into the liminal spaces LNNGOs occupy in the international humanitarian architecture and their own countries, operating within and between the boundaries of different systems.

Working across the boundaries of the Nexus, and the Public-Private divide

The triple nexus is an approach to strengthen the coherence and linkages amongst actors and actions across these three pillars of work. In South Sudan the three pillars are still largely theorized, funded and implemented within one or another. An integrated approach is mostly conceptual for international actors’ work as noted by Tschunkert et al. This gap between theory and practice can be attributed to a number of factors, humanitarian adherence to neutrality, and how an integrated approach is even defined.

The space between the pillars, where the nexus occurs in practice, is occupied by LNNGOs. Though seemingly new, the integrated approach is a familiar way of working for many LNNGOs, reminiscent of . Conceived in the 1980-1990s, LRRD was based on a linear continuum model where one phase of assistance prepared the ground for the next. In the space between the silos, distinctions become less stark. Development, humanitarian and peace labels are less relevant, and LNNGOs labeled as one or another don’t necessarily see themselves or their work in those rigid terms. In many cases the necessities of everyday humanitarian action do not allow an organization to work solely on one of the pillars.

Intersectional Translator

LNNGOs have sustained operations, physical presence and integration in communities making them community anchors that hold an understanding of interconnected needs, from both a nexus and sectoral perspective (e.g., livelihoods, health, etc.). They see communities in a holistic manner, not simply their immediate need but the evolution from the short to long term. Though donor financing is generally for short-term projects, LNNGOs’

For instance, faith-based organisations interviewed by De Wolf and Wilkinson described how their projects might include peacebuilding work, with education, livelihoods, and food security all at once. As one staff member put it, “it’s difficult to distinguish between the triple nexus” because their work “is mingled and the boundaries between them are blurred.”

Systems Weaver

Across volatile contexts with peaks and troughs of need, LNNGOs adjust their course of work from long-term development and peace activities to emergency activities addressing sudden need, and vice versa. They weave systems and single pillar-funded projects together implementing the nexus outside formal mechanisms. With competitive funding environments this may even mean they take on projects that do not closely align with their technical strengths.

In De Wolf and Wilkinson’s research local actors said their proximity to communities enables them to work through the nexus pillars in a cohesive manner that addresses both long and short-term need. One local actor explained with an example of how examining and addressing the inter-relationship between cattle-raiding and food insecurity was both a peace and humanitarian activity. Local organisations often use different pools of money to achieve these ends, making unflexible funding become flexible.

Social Cohesion Actor

LNNGOs overcome tensions between humanitarian and peace activity as on-the-ground social cohesion actors. The literature often distinguishes between ‘small p’ peace (community-level cohesion and conflict prevention) and ‘Big P’ peace (disarmament, demobilization, stabilization and peacekeeping activities), Tschunkert et al note how ambiguity around the concept of the peace pillar altogether leads donors to focus on tangible small p activities. Typically carried out in volatile settings, off limits to international staff, LNNGOs are tapped as sub-contractors of small p work, as pointed out by Kemmerling, and through this are the de facto nexus implementers.

Political Broker

Navigating power, relationships and resources LNNGOs leverage their comparative advantage, bridging the worlds of local populations, government authorities, donors and aid agencies. With a fluency in the language and rules of the aid system, LNNGOs serve as liaisons between communities and other actors. Moro et al note how LNNGOs serve as interlocutors between communities and aid agencies, including the government. Where communities often lack resources and ability to engage with aid actors on an equal footing, per Kemmerling, LNNGOs have a ‘feel for the game’ of how aid works, e.g., the rules, language, negotiating relationships in different spaces

Basic Service Provider

LNNGOs hold an amalgamated role of both public and social. While operating as NGOs, they often have considerably more resources than local government. Because of that they also have public authority and deliver basic services typically performed by government. Moro et al described LNNGOs as having visible, material signs of authority over that of the government, e.g., vehicles, phones, access to flights, and importantly the funding to deliver services of public benefit. This gives them a public authority, that can be seen as a challenge to government. Tchunkert et al note how this usurping of authority is architected at the national level, with donors circumventing governments to deliver services through the UN and INGOs.

Advocate & Employer

Oftentimes delivering in the communities they are from, LNNGOs bring benefit to their home. They often serve as representatives that advocate for their community, raising awareness of needs at the national level. In Robinson’s research one local actor described national NGOs as ‘mouthpieces’, saying, “if you have a certain community that have no local organisations, the issues, you know, conditions, the pains, the stresses, of certain communities, will not be advocated for”.

They also importantly serve as employers, capacity builders and a rung on the career ladder for local talent’s professional mobility, to the extent that employment is often seen as one of the major impacts of NGO work. In both Moro et al. and Robinson’s research, local NGO employment and leadership was a way to ‘become known’, helping many LLNGO founders and staff move into work with the government and international organizations.

Moving Forward

As the aid system is reshaped toward a leaner and more decentralized future, with localization seen as crucial, a transformational approach is needed. One that recognizes and legitimizes the liminal spaces where national and local actors thrive, and one that moves them from the margins to the center of humanitarian action. Their diverse roles in these liminal spaces must be acknowledged and seen not as deficiencies, but as vital capacities for a new aid paradigm.

About the author

Lisa M. Peterson is a PhD researcher at the International Institute of Social Studies, focusing on humanitarian governance, localization, and NGO coordination.