Last year’s Rafto Prize was awarded to Emergency Response Rooms of Sudan (ERRs) for their humanitarian work in the Sudanese civil war. As conflict continues to devastate the country and displace millions, ERR has played a vital role as a local humanitarian organisation. The organisation is community-driven and focuses on empowering the local community, which was one of the reasons why they were awarded the Rafto Prize1. The recognition of ERR raises questions on how local humanitarian organisations compare to international organisations in terms of efficiency, capacity and long-term sustainability. Efficiency and Structure International organisations will, to a larger degree, use international staff. However, in some cases they will employ and use staff from the country in crisis, in which they will be able to deploy their local understanding in the situation2. In the cases where international organisations do not use local staff to a great extent, there are undoubtedly several benefits of using local aid organisations instead. When comparing the efficiency and structure of humanitarian organisations, clear differences appear between local and international actors. Local actors have more cultural and contextual knowledge which allows them to use other approaches than international organisations. The Building Resilient Communities in Somalia (BRCiS) consortium included Somali local expertise, and thus was able to tailor the aid based on what the affected people actually needed.3 While the methods of the local actors are tailored to the specific context, international organisations often use standardised operating procedures. These procedures often prove efficient at the time of crises but can also provide a risk for unintended harm arising from the lack of understanding of local customs. International and local humanitarian aid organisations are also different in the way they are structured. The local organisations often have a vertical structure which might make it easier for them to adapt to sudden changes compared to organisations with hierarchical structures which are less flexible. Since local actors are already present in the affected area, they are able to respond quickly to sudden escalations in a current crisis. For example, ERR was based on community-led activities existing prior to the Sudanese war, which allowed them to establish immediately after the outbreak of the war.4 Because they were not dependent on foreign staff, they were able to mobilize quickly by using resources from local networks. By contrast, international organisations will to a large degree depend on international staff who have to be transported to the conflict-affected area. During the typhoon in the Philippines in 2013, the local NGOs had a more efficient first response because they were already present in the area.5 For international organisations, decisions have to pass through more levels of approval before international staff can be deployed, making it harder to be present when the crisis first emerges. International organisations may also struggle to enter the conflict-affected area because of restrictions and safety concerns while local actors have a more immediate access. Funding and legitimacy The local and international aid organizations also differ when it comes to accessing donors and funding, and areas where help is needed. The local organizations may not be well known outside of their area. This could impact their funding, as those who are willing to donate may not know of their work, or know who to trust. From the donors' point of view, it is difficult to trust that their money is going to the right causes when they have limited knowledge of the area and the different local organizations. This makes it more likely that they will choose to donate to the international organizations they know and trust. The access to donors is a great advantage for the international organizations. On the other hand, some studies suggest that local organizations might use their funding more efficiently. In 2024, The Share Trust and Refugees International in cooperation with Center for Disaster Philanthropy (CDP) published a study which showed that the local intermediaries were 15.5% more cost-efficient than the international ones in Ukraine. The study found that the UNOCHA Country Based Pooled Fund saved about $ 5.5 million in just one year.6 While the funding showed to be more efficient when going to the local actors in Ukraine this may not necessarily be the case elsewhere. In other areas the local actors will have widely different degrees of organization, and it will be difficult to predict how effective the funding will be. The funding of the organizations also shape the access they have to areas where aid is needed. This is clear when you look at the difference between MSF Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross. MSF is based on private donations as a way to protect their independence. 7 This funding strategy also allows them to not be associated with a country’s policy, which ensures their access to multiple areas other organizations do not have access to. While they gain access by staying independent with their funding, MSF is vocal about their experiences in the areas they work. This can both be a hindrance and a benefit, depending on whether the people in power wish to be in the spotlight or not. The Red Cross on the other hand relies heavily on financial contributions from states. However, their long-term humanitarian commitment to the principle of neutrality has provided the Red Cross access to conflict areas where other international humanitarian organisations were denied access due to them publicly reporting war crimes and violations they witnessed. For instance, MSF were denied access to Darfur for publicly reporting the rape of over 500 women by soldiers, whilst the Red Cross were able to remain due to their principle of remaining silent and not reporting violations that they witnessed.8 By funding the local actors, one can circumvent the problem altogether. The local actors will have access to the area no matter where they get their funding from or what they publish about the crisis since they are already there. All in all, the funding of local actors is shown to be positive. However, at the same time they lack the legitimacy and the resources that the international aid organizations have. Empowering the affected people Scholars have also pointed out how local organisations can create a sense of ownership and empowerment in a time of crisis and war. Including the local population in humanitarian aid can help the affected people of the crisis feel a sense of control in a time of despair and hopelessness. Using local staff and collecting them together to work on infrastructural projects, or on the distribution of water, food and medicine can also create a sense of solidarity and cohesion which is incredibly important in times of war. Scholars have even suggested that creating such a space where the affected population collaborate together on their common humanity can even facilitate the discussion of peace and negotiation further down the road.9 Strengthening local organisations will also provide a more sustainable dynamic in later crises as the people can transfer knowledge, dynamics and infrastructure they have built. For instance, the BRIGHTLY consortium, combined the strengths of international aid organisations with national Yemeni organisations to empower and strengthen the local community. It put the decision-making processes in the hands of the local community which paved the way for mentoring and training.10 Not only is this empowering on a psychological level, but it is also extremely sustainable in the long-term. Therefore, this article does not intend to diminish the importance of international aid organisations. On the contrary, international aid organisations have been vital in securing life for centuries. However, as this article mentions, and seen through ERR’s hard work in Sudan, strengthening local organisations can provide aid relief in a sustainable and efficient manner, in addition to empowering the affected population in a time of crisis.