When risk is local, but decisions are not: bridging the gap in risk-sharing practice

Risk is inherent in humanitarian action, but how it is experienced and managed across partnerships is far from equal. In contexts like Yemen, where operational constraints, access limitations and compliance pressures intersect daily, national non-governmental organisations (NGOs) operate closest to risk. They are the first to encounter disruptions, the first to respond, and often the ones who carry the consequences. Yet they are not always equally involved in shaping how those risks are anticipated or managed. Risk is present across the delivery chain, but responsibility is not.

Across partnerships, this imbalance is not usually the result of a single decision, but of how risk is handled in practice. Three recurring barriers continue to shape risk management: late conversations, unclear expectations and limited inclusion in decision-making. These are not isolated issues. Together, they reinforce a system where risk is addressed reactively, unevenly and with limited transparency.

Late conversations

Risk conversations frequently begin too late. In many cases, discussions are only triggered once an issue has already materialised a delay linked to access constraints, a compliance concern or a disruption in implementation. By that point, risk is no longer something to plan for, but something to contain. In one common scenario, a project begins in an area where access challenges are already anticipated, yet no early agreement is made on escalation pathways, communication roles or response scenarios. When disruption occurs, such as in banking or cash transfer, and especially in cash-based programming when a local bank freezes transactions or delays transfers due to compliance concerns or cash fluidity shortage, the national partner faces immediate pressure from communities. With no pre-agreed contingency plan, they improvise solutions (e.g., delaying distributions or negotiating with vendors), and the national partner manages the immediate consequences on the ground, while broader discussions on risk only begin once the issue has escalated. By the time it is formally labelled as a ‘risk’, it has already become a problem. This reactive approach narrows mitigation options and shifts risk management away from shared anticipation towards containment.

Unclear expectations

At the same time, risk appetite while it may exist is not always translated into practical, shared expectations. In practice, national NGOs often navigate uncertainty around what should be reported, when, and how it will be perceived. This becomes particularly visible when foreseeable issues arise. For example, a team may identify an early risk of delay linked to banking restrictions, approval bottlenecks or access constraints. The risk is recognised, but uncertainty remains: will early reporting be seen as proactive management, or as underperformance? In the absence of clear expectations, teams may soften or delay reporting, attempting to manage the issue internally. When the delay becomes unavoidable, it is escalated late, mitigation options are limited, and pressure increases. At that stage, national actors are expected to justify the delay, manage community expectations, and absorb the reputational impact. When reporting risk feels risky, risk is managed silently.

Limited inclusion in decision-making

Compounding this is a persistent gap between accountability and inclusion. National actors are frequently expected to manage the consequences of risk explaining delays to communities, maintaining relationships with local authorities, and navigating reputational pressures without having been meaningfully involved in the decisions that produced those risks. In some cases, projects are delayed or paused due to upstream decisions such as compressed timelines driven by donor cycles, when activities are approved late but expected to be delivered quickly to meet reporting deadlines.

This leads to rushed implementation, limited community engagement, and higher error rates leaving local partners to manage the fallout on the ground. In others, opportunities for mitigation are missed because local knowledge is not integrated early enough to influence outcomes. This is not risk sharing. It is closer to risk shifting. Local actors are asked to own risks but not decisions.

Strengthening risk sharing in practice

Moving from reaction to anticipation

Addressing these challenges has not required entirely new systems, but consistent shifts in how partnerships operate in practice. One important change has been the introduction of earlier and more deliberate risk conversations. Bringing partners together at the outset to discuss likely scenarios, escalation pathways and communication roles allows risk to be anticipated rather than reacted to. When these discussions are documented even through simple formats, they create a shared reference point that teams can return to during implementation. Without documentation, early conversations are quickly lost. With it, they become part of how the project is managed, reducing confusion when disruptions occur and shifting risk from ‘unexpected event’ to ‘planned-for scenario’.

Making expectations explicit

Clarifying expectations has also proven critical. Making explicit what needs to be reported immediately, where flexibility exists and what forms of adaptation are acceptable helps reduce hesitation and supports more confident decision-making. This alignment is not only about what is written in agreements, but how those agreements are interpreted and applied in practice. When expectations remain implicit, uncertainty persists. When they are clearly understood, partners are more likely to communicate early and act with confidence, supporting more realistic implementation.

Including local actors in mitigation planning

Greater inclusion of national actors in mitigation planning has further strengthened responses. Their contextual knowledge often leads to more realistic decisions on timelines, access and community engagement. When this input is integrated early, mitigation measures are more practical and more widely owned, reducing friction during implementation. Inclusion at this stage does not only improve decisions; it also strengthens accountability by ensuring that those responsible for managing risks are part of shaping how they are addressed.

Treating risk as a continuous process

There has also been a gradual shift towards treating risk management as an ongoing process rather than a one-time requirement. Instead of relying solely on static risk registers, some partnerships are introducing regular check-ins where risks are revisited and updated as contexts evolve. This allows for earlier and more adaptive responses, particularly in volatile environments where conditions can change rapidly. Risk, in these settings, is not a fixed list but a moving reality that requires continuous attention.

Making risk visible through shared tools

Alongside this, the use of shared tools from simple trackers to more structured systemic platforms like the risk-sharing platform have helped make risk more visible across partners. In smaller setups, this may be as straightforward as a shared document. As the number of actors increases, such tools help highlight interdependencies, clarify responsibilities and support more consistent follow-up. While tools alone do not resolve deeper issues such as power dynamics or unclear expectations, they help reduce siloed approaches and anchor risk discussions in a shared and transparent process. Their value lies less in the tool itself, and more in making the conversation visible and continuous.

Conclusion

These practices, drawn from operational experience in Yemen, are contributing to more balanced approaches to risk sharing. Progress is visible, but uneven. In many cases, improvements depend on the willingness of individual actors to engage differently, rather than being systematically embedded across partnerships. Challenges persist, including fear of reporting, compliance pressures and limited inclusion in decision-making. Risk dialogue is improving in some contexts, but it is not yet consistent.

Risk sharing will not improve through language alone. It is shaped through how partners communicate, decide and act in practice. In contexts where risk is inherently local, improving risk sharing depends on ensuring that those closest to risk are also part of how it is managed. Risk should not be managed around local actors, but with them. It becomes shared not when it is documented, but when it is discussed, understood and acted on together.

Mohanna Eljabaly is a General Manager at Yemen Family Care Association (YFCA).