The Regional Humanitarian Partnership Week (RHPW) Asia Pacific 2025, held in Bangkok from 8 –10 December 2025 and co-organized by ICVA, ADRRN, Community World Service Asia, and OCHA, brought together humanitarian actors from across the region to reflect on how aid systems must change in response to growing crises, shrinking resources, and increasing calls for accountability. Convened under the theme “Reframing Humanitarianism for a Changing World,” the event focused on power redistribution, financing innovation, climate-humanitarian linkages, conflict-sensitive programming, and the role of local leadership in shaping effective humanitarian action.

The Asia-Pacific region sits at the intersection of these challenges. Climate-induced disasters are increasing in frequency and intensity, conflicts are becoming more complex and localized, and traditional donor funding is declining. At the same time, local and national organizations continue to respond first — and often most effectively — when crises strike. Yet, as repeatedly highlighted throughout RHPW, these same actors remain constrained by systems that were not designed for their realities.

Within this regional dialogue, the ToGETHER program contributed a session on “Shifting Power: Flexible Funding for Locally Led Humanitarian Action,” drawing on concrete experiences from the Humanitarian Operation and Innovation Facility (HOIFA). Speakers included representatives from local humanitarian partners engaged in the ToGETHER program in Myanmar (Myanmar Heart Development Organization), Bangladesh (Centre for Disability in Development), Pakistan (Fast Rural Development Program) and Indonesia (Yayasan SHEEP Indonesia). Rather than discussing localization as a policy ambition, the session focused on how shifts in power, funding, and accountability are already playing out in practice across Asia-Pacific contexts.

What shifting power looks like on the ground

Speakers began by reflecting on what HOIFA has meant for local organizations involved in the ToGETHER program. A recurring theme was that the most significant change has not been access to funding alone, but who makes decisions and how quickly those decisions can be taken.

Under HOIFA, local partners are able to set priorities based on community needs, manage and adjust budgets, and plan activities without waiting for multiple layers of external approval. This has allowed responses to focus on locally identified priorities such as disaster preparedness, early warning, multipurpose cash, and protection concerns, rather than pre-defined donor expectations.

As one panelist noted, “the biggest transformation has been moving from top-down decisions to local leadership. HOIFA is not only about funding; it is about trust.”

Participants highlighted three practical effects of this shift”

These experiences align with broader commitments under the Grand Bargain and the Core Humanitarian Standard, however, the session emphasized that translating these commitments into practice requires more than policy language, it requires changes in systems and behaviors.

Flexibility and accountability are not opposites

A recurring concern among donors is whether flexible funding weakens accountability. Speakers challenged the idea that flexibility weakens oversight, arguing instead that accountability becomes stronger when it is rooted in outcomes and community feedback rather than procedural compliance.

Under HOIFA, reporting focuses on why decisions were made, how funds were used, and what changed as a result. This approach reduces administrative burden and allows partners to spend more time on implementation and community engagement.

Importantly, accountability mechanisms are shifted closer to affected people. Local partners described how feedback and complaint mechanisms —such as suggestion boxes, community meetings, hotlines, and messaging platforms— are used to gather real-time input and adjust programming accordingly.

“Flexible funding works when accountability
is held by those closest to the impact.”

Examples shared during the session included relocating distribution points in response to women’s safety concerns, correcting exclusion errors in cash assistance after community feedback, and adapting evacuation plans based on input from persons with disabilities. These mechanisms allow communities to influence decisions as they are being made, not only after activities are completed. In these cases the key accountability question was not “Was every step pre-approved?” but “Did this change better serve the community?”

Risk is not shared equally: the reality for local organizations

While HOIFA has enabled meaningful shifts, panelists were clear that challenges remain, particularly around risk sharing. Drawing from experiences in Myanmar, panelists described operating in contexts marked by conflict, displacement, movement restrictions, electricity cuts, and internet shutdowns. While donors primarily face financial and reputational risk, local partners continue to bear disproportionate risks, including daily security threats, access constraints, and cashflow delays.

“Even with flexible funding like HOIFA,” one panelist noted, “we are still working within INGO-style systems —complex reporting, tight procurement rules, strict documentation— that do not match our reality.” These requirements can be difficult to meet in contexts marked by conflict, displacement, and infrastructure disruptions.

Cashflow delays were identified as a critical issue, especially for small local organizations without reserves to pre-finance activities. Participants stressed that flexibility in programming must be matched by flexibility in financial processes if locally led response is to function effectively.

Recognizing this, ToGETHER has initiated ongoing risk-sharing dialogues at both country and global levels, involving donors, intermediaries, and local partners. Speakers emphasized the need for simpler compliance, faster approvals during emergencies, and budgets that include security, contingency, and core organizational costs.

Community participation beyond consultation

Another focus of the discussion was how communities influence funding and program decisions under HOIFA. Speakers emphasized that participation becomes meaningful when community input directly affects how resources are allocated.

“When we talk about participation,” a panelist reflected, “we often imagine a meeting under a tree. But in our HOIFA journey, participation became something much more powerful, it became people reclaiming their decisions.”

Through approaches such as the People-First Impact Method (P-FIM), communities identify their own priorities, rank needs, and share existing coping strategies. These inputs shape not only project design, but also budget decisions and adjustments during implementation.

Inclusive processes ensure that women, youth, older persons, and people with disabilities are able to influence decisions, rather than simply attend meetings. Feedback loops close the circle by showing communities how their voices translated into concrete actions, building trust.

Because HOIFA funding is flexible, partners are able to respond immediately when new priorities emerge, reinforcing the link between participation and decision-making. The result is a humanitarian response that is faster, more accountable, and deeply rooted in community leadership.

Scaling locally led financing beyond projects

Looking ahead, speakers reflected on what is needed to sustain and scale locally led financing models. A key message was that scale is not achieved by expanding projects alone, but by embedding community-driven approaches into existing systems.

“Scalability is not about adding more money, it is
about building systems where communities lead,
governments integrate, and donors trust.”

Examples were shared of community priorities being integrated into village planning documents, district disaster plans, and national policy discussions through localization platforms such as Indonesia’s LokaNusa. These linkages help ensure that locally led approaches are not treated as temporary pilots, but as part of formal governance and financing structures.

At the global level, ToGETHER’s engagement in localization and humanitarian financing dialogues continues to highlight that trust-based, flexible funding can improve effectiveness without reducing accountability.

Underlying all of this is sustained mentoring, not one-off training. Peer-to-peer learning strengthens local leadership, builds confidence, and spreads capacity horizontally across networks.

Lessons for the future of humanitarian financing

As the session closed, panelists reflected on what HOIFA offers to the broader humanitarian system.

• First, shifting power to local decision-making bodies —such as Country Steering Committees in ToGETHER— works. It accelerates response, strengthens accountability, and builds trust with communities.
• Second, flexibility does not increase risk, it increases effectiveness.
• Third, donors must move from a culture of control to one of trust and partnership.

Urgent changes highlighted included:

• Simplified and appropriate donor requirements
• Multi-year funding to retain skilled staff
• Increased direct funding to local actors
• Support for core organizational and contingency costs

“Local actors already have the knowledge
and community connections. What we need is fair
access to resources and systems that allow
us to do our work effectively.”

Reflections from RHPW

The ToGETHER session at RHPW Asia Pacific 2025 offered practical insights into how power shifts are already happening and where further changes are needed. The discussions reinforced that local organizations and communities are not lacking capacity or ideas. What they need are systems that reflect their realities, share risk more equitably, and trust local leadership.

As humanitarian actors across the region continue to navigate a changing world, experiences from HOIFA demonstrate that locally led humanitarian action is not only possible, but already delivering results when the conditions allow it.

The challenge now is whether global systems are ready to follow where local leadership is already leading.