By Nigussie Tefera
Africa-Press – Ethiopia. August 7, 2025 10 minutes read Addis Abeba – For over a decade, the global humanitarian community has promoted “localization”: a shift of power and funding to local actors. From the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit to initiatives like the Grand Bargain pledged to direct at least 25% of humanitarian financing to local organizations, the rhetoric has been consistent.
According to a 2025 study by the Consortium of Christian Relief and Development Association (CCRDA), Ethiopia continues to lag behind in translating localization commitments into reality. Despite years of reform talk, local actors continue to struggle for meaningful access, influence, and equitable partnership. Coordination is still externally driven. Funding is still centralized. And “local” remains an afterthought, not a foundation. This pattern is not unique to Ethiopia; it reflects a broader trend in many countries with high demand for humanitarian assistance.
To reverse this trajectory, Martin Griffiths, former UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, launched the Humanitarian Reset initiative in 2023—a vision further advanced through 2025 by Tom Fletcher, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator at the United Nations (UN). Conceived as a systemic overhaul, the initiative responds to the growing scale and complexity of global crises, from climate shocks and armed conflict to economic instability. It is built upon three core pillars.
The first pillar is Regroup, which focuses on prioritizing urgent, life-saving needs while adapting to constraints in access and funding. The second, Reform, aims to streamline coordination, reduce duplication, and improve cost-efficiency. Finally, the third pillar, Renewal, seeks to embed innovation, local leadership, and community voices at the very heart of humanitarian action.
In Ethiopia, where the Reset is currently under discussion, the proposal has been met with cautious optimism. But one critical question remains: Will this Reset finally deliver or simply recycle old approaches under new branding?
Local and national NGOs have consistently demonstrated their value: delivering rapid, context-specific responses grounded in community trust. Yet they remain chronically underfunded, sidelined from key decisions, and treated as junior partners in a system that too often prioritizes international actors.
Now, as the Reset shifts from concept to potential implementation, its success will hinge not on design alone, but on delivery. Will it bring resources closer to the front lines? Will it streamline bloated systems, elevate local voices, and shift entrenched power dynamics? Or will it remain yet another top-down reform with little impact where it’s needed most?
To shed light on the topic, I conducted a Humanitarian Reset Priorities Survey in mid-2025 through the CCRDA Humanitarian Forum, engaging 34 civil society organizations, primarily Ethiopian NGOs operating across diverse regions and sectors. The goal was straightforward: to gather grounded perspectives that could shape how the Reset is implemented in Ethiopia.
The survey focused on three core areas of the Reset agenda: awareness and readiness for the Reset, perspectives on Area-Based Humanitarian Coordination (ABHC), and involvement in and capacity for Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA).
The Reset cannot deliver real change if local actors are left out of early-stage discussions, design processes, and decision-making spaces.”
I also asked a crucial question: What is the most urgent change needed for the Reset to deliver meaningful results? What emerged is both hopeful and cautionary. There is broad support for the vision of the Reset but also a clear and consistent warning: unless it brings tangible shifts in power, financing, and participation, the Reset risks becoming yet another well-branded reform that fails to move the needle.
Insights from Survey
1. Reset: Familiar in Name, Foreign in Practice
While 44% of Ethiopian CSO respondents had heard of the Humanitarian Reset, only 23% felt well-informed about it. The majority had not been consulted in any meaningful way. Similarly, most participants were unfamiliar with Area-Based Humanitarian Coordination (ABHC), despite two-thirds expressing support for the model in principle.
The Reset cannot deliver real change if local actors are left out of early-stage discussions, design processes, and decision-making spaces. A reform that claims to shift power must begin by sharing information and enabling access, not just at launch, but from the outset.
Both the ICVA’s Reset Hub and OCHA’s Reset Brief emphasize inclusion, transparency, and local ownership as central to the Reset’s success. For the Reset to be more than rhetoric, inclusion must begin with informed participation, not post-facto validation.
2. Local Priorities Go Beyond Survival
When asked what “life-saving” assistance means in the Ethiopian context, respondents naturally named food, shelter, and protection. But they also highlighted livelihoods, education, and psychosocial support as equally critical. This signals a deeper, more holistic understanding of what it takes for communities not just to survive, but to recover and rebuild.
The respondents define survival through the lens of dignity, continuity, and resilience, not narrow humanitarian checklists. For the Reset to succeed, its implementation must be guided by community realities, not abstract priorities shaped far from the frontline. Also, as echoed in Ethiopia’s 2024 Humanitarian Needs Overview, communities want dignity, continuity, and resilience, not temporary relief.
Although only a few respondents named peace as a life-saving necessity, I argue that in Ethiopia’s crisis-affected context, peace must be recognized as such. It can no longer be viewed solely as a political aspiration; it is a humanitarian imperative.
A powerful example comes from Tigrayan refugees in Sudan. As reported by Addis Standard, they staged a peaceful protest to demand urgent humanitarian assistance amid worsening conditions: acute shortages of food, medicine, shelter, and insecurity due to Sudan’s own internal conflict. These refugees explicitly connected their suffering to the stalled implementation of the Pretoria Peace Agreement. They made it clear that safe, voluntary return to Western Tigray and other regions is not just a political demand; it is a life-saving necessity. Their protest bridges immediate humanitarian needs with the long-term promise of peacebuilding. It powerfully illustrates that, in Ethiopia’s humanitarian landscape, survival and sustainable peace are deeply interwoven.
3. Area-Based Humanitarian Coordination: Endorsed in Theory, Vague in Practice
Findings from the survey reveal serious challenges in implementing Area-Based Humanitarian Coordination (ABHC) in the future. While 66.7% of respondents said ABHC is “very appropriate,” 71% were either unfamiliar or uncertain about what the model actually entails, exposing a critical awareness and communication gap. This disconnection between theory and practice could be compounded by key challenges, including limited funding alignment (79%), local capacity gaps (74%), and lack of role clarity (56%).
Respondents also flagged concerns over overlap with existing coordination structures, the influence of ethnic politics, insecurity, and data inconsistencies, all of which undermine efforts to localize coordination meaningfully. These findings echo deeper structural weaknesses identified in ICVA’s Adapting Humanitarian Coordination report and COFEM’s open letter.
One major issue is the absence of dedicated funding for NGO-led coordination mechanisms, which forces reliance on external systems and erodes local autonomy. A second concern involves “under-the-radar” grassroots coordination structures that lack formal recognition within the national humanitarian framework. Another challenge is the merging of specialized bodies—such as gender-based violence (GBV) coordination—into broader clusters, thereby diluting gender expertise and weakening localization progress. Finally, persistent gaps in role clarity, policy coherence, and power dynamics continue to hinder local leadership and representation in both coordination and funding systems.
4. Cash and Voucher Assistance: Trusted, But Trapped
In Ethiopia, 53% of local organizations included in the survey are already implementing Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA), and another 20% expressed strong interest in initiating such programs. CVA is viewed as a flexible, dignified, and efficient modality of aid. However, respondents raised systemic obstacles, including infrastructure deficits, security risks, donor rigidity, and weak local market systems, all of which severely limit CVA’s potential to be scaled or localized effectively.
The situation in Ethiopia echoes broader advocacy from the global humanitarian community. In its June 2025 letter, the CALP Network calls for CVA systems to be designed, owned, and delivered by local actors. It emphasizes that localization in CVA requires more than digital payment platforms; it demands a transfer of trust, authority, and decision-making to frontline responders who are closest to the communities they serve. Together, the Ethiopian data and CALP’s global advocacy highlight a shared message: Scaling up CVA requires enabling environments, not just technical tools, but also a decisive shift toward locally led, community-responsive systems.
5. Reset Without Resources Is Just Rebranding
The survey reveals a critical insight: over 60% of organizations say they are ready to lead humanitarian coordination. Yet, as confirmed in the 2025 CCRDA Localization Assessment, they remain sidelined, receiving subgrants without decision-making power, while funding and leadership stay in international hands. Without shifts in power, financing, and trust, the Reset risks becoming empty rhetoric. Real change demands real reallocation.
To ensure the Reset leads to meaningful change, donors and international agencies must create space, transfer resources, and invest in trust-building. Respondents identified several strategic priorities essential for the Reset to produce concrete outcomes. These include direct funding to local organizations, support for domestic resource mobilization, locally led coordination mechanisms, long-term capacity strengthening, and accountability to affected communities—not just to donors.
These priorities align closely with the IASC’s Reset Statement, which calls for “sharing leadership and coordination roles with local actors; investing in the operational capacities of national responders; ensuring equitable partnerships, not transactional subcontracting relationships; and tailoring financing modalities to enable timely, predictable, and flexible support for local responders.”
This is not a call for charity; it is a call for equity. The message is clear: quality funding (direct, flexible, and long-term), resilience building, and bi-directional accountability must be at the core of the Reset. Ethiopia’s findings confirm that unless local actors are empowered with resources, leadership, and decision-making power, the Reset will remain a rebranding exercise, not a real shift.
Recommendations for real change
For years, localization has filled conference agendas and strategy documents. But in Ethiopia’s crisis-affected landscape, it is not an option; it is a necessity. Local actors are already first responders and long-term partners. But leadership doesn’t happen by default. It must be deliberately enabled through policy, financing, and political will. Otherwise, the Reset becomes just another imported reform imposed from above.
The Humanitarian Reset presents a rare chance to transform aid in Ethiopia, but only if it is co-owned, co-led, and co-financed by those on the frontlines.”
To ensure the Humanitarian Reset becomes a genuine turning point rather than a missed opportunity, several key actions are imperative: First, reform funding flows by guaranteeing direct, flexible, and multi-year financing for local and national NGOs.
Second, localize Area-Based Humanitarian Coordination (ABHC) by piloting models that are co-led by local civil society organizations. These models should include clearly defined roles, regional coordination hubs, and communication in local languages.
Third, scale cash and voucher assistance (CVA) sustainably by investing in digital infrastructure, market access, and local CVA capacities—not only for program delivery but also for design, oversight, and local ownership.
Fourth, develop local leadership by institutionalizing peer learning, mentorship, and structured leadership pipelines for local actors within the broader humanitarian system.
Finally, raise awareness and foster inclusion through national communication campaigns conducted in local languages. These efforts should aim to explain the Humanitarian Reset, strengthen community engagement, and democratize participation.
The Humanitarian Reset in Ethiopia is not destined to fail—but it will not succeed on good intentions alone. If donors, UN agencies, and international NGOs are truly committed to meaningful change, they must adopt a fundamentally different approach. A key priority is funding local actors directly by setting measurable targets and tracking progress transparently—not merely through statements, but through actual financial allocations. Equally important is sharing power in coordination. Co-leadership with local actors must be genuine—not symbolic or tokenistic.
Furthermore, supporting capacity without fostering dependency is essential. This requires moving beyond ad hoc training and subcontracting and instead investing in systems that promote self-reliance and long-term institutional resilience. In addition, monitoring localization as a core metric of success is critical. This involves consistently asking and acting on key questions: Who is deciding? Who is leading? Who is being heard?
These priorities strongly echo the demands of global civil society as outlined in Rebalancing the Reset, which urges international actors to take the following bold and measurable action. First, shift from rhetoric to reallocation by ending the cycle of pledges without follow-through. This requires a firm commitment to real-time changes in financing, decision-making, and accountability structures.
Second, ensure decision-making is devolved so that local actors hold genuine authority—not merely a symbolic presence at the table. Third, center accountability on affected populations, recognizing that localization must focus on community accountability rather than donor compliance.
Fourth, reform risk-sharing frameworks by moving away from models that place disproportionate compliance burdens and risks on local organizations. Finally, adopt transparent localization metrics by establishing global tracking systems that clearly reflect who receives funding, who holds decision-making power, and who delivers results on the ground.
In short, the Reset’s success in Ethiopia depends on action, not intention. UN agencies and international NGOs must take the following steps: provide direct funding to local actors; share decision-making power; support autonomy rather than foster dependency; and transparently track progress through clear localization metrics.
The Humanitarian Reset presents a rare chance to transform aid in Ethiopia, but only if it is co-owned, co-led, and co-financed by those on the frontlines. Anything less is simply a rebrand of the status quo.
Local organizations are not asking for favors; they are demanding fairness. They seek power, not pity; partnership, not patronage. For the Reset to deliver on its promise, it must lead to tangible shifts in who decides, who leads, and who receives resources.
The question is no longer whether the Reset will launch. It already has.
The real question is, will it reset the system or just recycle the same power dynamics in new packaging? AS
Editor’s Note: Nigussie Tefera serves as the Humanitarian Forum Coordinator and HIV Project Coordinator at the Consortium of Christian Relief and Development Associations (CCRDA). He led the 2025 Humanitarian Reset Priorities Survey and has overseen several national studies focused on locally led humanitarian action and civil society capacity in Ethiopia. Nigussie can be reached at [email protected].
Source: Addis Standard
For More News And Analysis About Ethiopia Follow Africa-Press
