In 2016, at the World Humanitarian Summit, all the big players in the international humanitarian aid system, committed to ‘better support and reinforce national and local actors’. Since then, the roles and behaviors of notably international aid agencies, acting as ‘intermediaries’ for the funding to national and local actors, have come under closer review.[1]
This briefing paper looks at what we mean by ‘intermediary’ and why ‘back-donors’ use them. It unpacks how intermediaries can add value but can also abuse their power over national and local actors they sub-grant to. Abusive behavior can come from specific individuals, but unjust practices can be more structurally embedded in how an organization sees its intermediation role, and its wider organizational culture and self-image. Organizations playing intermediary roles now can and must reflect self-critically about how they choose to play that role. The next briefing paper will offer practical guidance for the conversations back-donors can and must have with those they fund in intermediary roles.
[1] See e.g. Grand Bargain Localisation Workstream 2020: Guidance Note on Arrangements between Donors and Intermediaries; Humanitarian Advisory Group, Glow Consultants & CoLab 2021: Bridging the Intention to Action Gap. The future role of intermediaries in supporting locally-led action; Myanmar Civil Society 2022: Positioning Paper on Localisation and Intermediary Role; A4EP 2022: Proposition Intermediaries Caucus; Intermediaries Caucus 2022: Towards Co-ownership: The role of intermediaries in supporting locally-led humanitarian action. Peace Direct 2022: The Nine Roles that Intermediaries Can Play in International Cooperation (working paper for the Netherlands MoFA); Peace Direct 2023: The Nine Roles that Intermediaries Can Play in International Cooperation. This paper is also based on GMI’s leading critical reflections on this with bilateral donors.
