UN80 and the Humanitarian Reset: redefining UN roles in a more local humanitarian system

Summary

2026 is a critical year to ensure UN80 and the Humanitarian Reset translate into results on the ground for people in the most severe need. A group of nearly 50 participants from 21 countries and representing local organisations, international agencies, and Member States/donors met at Wilton Park to identify concrete ways to deliver on the commitment to ensure a humanitarian system that is ‘as local as possible, as international as necessary’.

Participants discussed how to collectively overcome the inertia of the last decade where a progressive localisation narrative has prevailed, but widespread actions and impact are missing. The localisation agenda has agreement in principle; convincing data exists of its benefits and cost-effectiveness; and years of evidence and good practice are available. Yet progress is slow, trust is thinner, and the people closest to the crises still have very little control over the decisions which affect their lives. Efforts to drive significant changes in power and resourcing can generate “ferocious resistance.” Does this reflect insurmountable barriers or a lack of genuine commitment?

Participants were frank and provocative in their discussions, acknowledging that the ecosystem is simultaneously dynamic and hard to change. They discussed incentives in the system and surfaced major themes such as complementarity; leadership and coordination; voice and influence; accountability and the burden of risk; and funding and resources.

Key directions for the future

• Acknowledge the many components within the complex ecosystem. International humanitarian response is only one part of the system. Families, communities, local organisations, intermediaries and networks, local and national governments, and the diaspora play fundamental roles in sustaining people before, during, and after the international humanitarian system responds.
• A paradigm shift in approach to local leadership is needed. Rather than contracting local partners to deliver for the international system, we need a shift in power and decision making so the international system aligns behind affected communities. That means starting from local and national perspectives: developing strategies to understand and support the capabilities and capacities of local organisations and networks. It also means reflecting on how funding mechanisms can more directly empower local actors.
• We must take a sharper view on complementarity as the starting point for humanitarian response. Stakeholders from across the ecosystem bring unique and valuable capacities and capabilities. Analysis of complementarity needs to be grounded in context and will change over time. Our starting point should be subsidiarity: why not local? If local is not possible now, how do we start the process of transition? 
• Coordination requires the creation of pluralistic and inclusive spaces. We need to go beyond counting the representatives of, and consultations with, local actors within internationally defined and led structures, to promoting genuine influence and meaningful decision-making.
• Collective accountability needs to be built on risk sharing, not risk transfer. That means we need to better understand the balance between risk and return on humanitarian action. It also means more emphasis on achieving collective outcomes (vulnerability reduced) and less on institutional ownership or project outputs (numbers of people reached).
• Finance needs to be reviewed and transformed. Greater transparency on funding allocations, and operational cost data, is urgently needed to ensure funds reach local organisations and networks according to the complementarity analysis. We should reflect on the institutional incentives created by our financial rules, and how to keep them fit for purpose in a changing world.
• Collective messaging is needed across the ecosystem. The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) complementarity paper represents an opportunity for structured and regular reflection. We need to embed complementarity and cooperation as critically important foundations on which to build meaningful progress. We also need to ensure that Member States invest in the humanitarian diplomacy needed to protect space for humanitarian action, particularly by local actors.

Recommendations for action

The discussions resulted in the following set of recommendations and actions to be addressed and considered by all relevant actors:

1. Regular in-country complementarity analysis to answer the question: who is best placed to deliver? In each relevant country, international and local partners should map decision-making, governance and organisational capacities, skills and engagement to inform delivery of Humanitarian Needs and Response Plans, providing a clear picture of (i) who is best placed to deliver key outcomes identified in the plan – and where delivery is not locally led, why not?; and (ii) how responsibility for delivery will be transferred from international to national or local partnerships. The approach needs to be underpinned by stronger approaches to collective accountability. 
2. Financing that supports complementarity, prevents fragmentation, and stops mission creep. Member States and partners should undertake a review of the overall financing picture in selected contexts to understand what it adds up to and what incentives are being created. Member States should (i) ensure their funding supports complementarity, for example by consulting Resident and Humanitarian Coordinators before taking decisions on bilateral UN funding requests at the country level; (ii) ensure strategic join-up by funding cross-cutting outcomes; and (iii) consider whether the right mechanisms exist to channel funding at scale through locally led pooled funds and intermediaries. Local organisations should communicate the legitimacy and value of local action and their impact. They should leverage the role and power of networks and local intermediaries in the country and avoid fragmentation and competition for funds between local organisations.
3. Coordination that enables complementarity.  International partners should create pluralistic and inclusive spaces with local partners which facilitate meaningful co-creation of strategies and approaches to locally led prioritisation and planning. They should support Resident and Humanitarian Coordinators to have the flexibility to adjust tools at the country level to enable contextual planning.
4. Common messaging that protects space for complementarity. Member States shouldcommit to collective messaging through the IASC, relevant UN agency Boards etc to reinforce complementarity and underline collective commitment to full transparency on delivery costs. Member States should also commit to collective humanitarian diplomacy to protect the space for principled humanitarian partners and the protection of humanitarian and personnel, especially local responders.

Participants acknowledged the value of this diverse group to help drive progress on the proposed recommendations. They identified key moments later in the year, including the Grand Bargain Signatories Meeting (October), the IASC meeting with donors (October) and Humanitarian week (December) to advance collective efforts on complementarity. 

Alison Dunn

Wilton Park | July 2026