International humanitarian and development grant funding has significantly contributed toward the government-led response to the Syrian refugee crisis in Türkiye. The increased availability of funding and presence of international donors and organisations has also undeniably supported the development of L/NNGOs. Local actors have expanded their activities and gained greater know-how and experience. Coordination and networks between LNAs and international partners have improved and promoted greater collaboration among L/NNGOs, strengthening local leadership.
LNAs, especially the GoT and the TRC, are increasingly responsible for implementing most internationally funded programmes in Türkiye. However, donor funding instruments, regulations and preferences mean that LNAs are still unable to access much international donor funding directly. This challenge is more acute for L/NNGOs than it is for national government institutions, which receive the majority of this direct funding. Nevertheless, considering that Türkiye is a higher middle-income country with a strong state tradition not historically reliant on external grant funding, the direct funding that is currently available to the government is notably low. Some significant shifts from humanitarian budget lines – from which most funding to L/NNGOs comes – to development ones, suggests that access to funding for L/NNGOs may require development of mechanisms to increase funding directed to LNAs, especially L/NNGOs. Our research found that local NGOs, refugee-led and women’s organisations in particular received a very small proportion of international funding, both directly and indirectly.
Access to quality funding is both a criterion and enabler of localisation, as well as indicative of its nature and extent in practice. However, localisation is about more than funding: it is also about interrogating and breaking down broader power relations between donors, international organisations, intermediary organisations and local actors. Localisation needs to be seen as a framework which recognises the experiences and leadership of local actors rather than focusing solely on funding transactional relationships. How funding is organised, prioritised and accessed needs to reflect this. While there are examples of strategic partnerships in Türkiye, the widespread dependence on short-term, projectised humanitarian funding was found to reinforce a ‘subcontracting’ relationship between international and local actors in some cases. This model treats L/NNGOs as implementing partners only and highlights a disconnect between the increasing support for localisation at the global level and the reality at country level.
Türkiye remains a complex political environment to operate in for both international and national actors. Calls to increase funding ‘as directly as possible’ to LNAs are valid – direct funding is a more cost-effective way of delivering assistance and links donor funding decisions more closely with those who know the context and needs best. However, many donors have limited capacity, or are unwilling, to manage large numbers of grants – a reality reflected throughout the humanitarian system. Funding which passes through an intermediary therefore needs to be based on improved partnerships, enhanced coordination and complementarity, joint planning and prioritisation and equitable cost and risk sharing.
