Delivering Aid Effectively in Yemen: Pathways to Equitable Partnerships

Yemen’s civic space, much like its global counterparts, is increasingly under threat despite its resilience and adaptability.¹ Prolonged conflict, coupled with a shrinking operational environment, has created significant challenges for civil society organizations (CSOs). While the conflict in Yemen has drawn substantial international aid, it is Yemen’s diverse and dynamic local CSOs that play a central role in addressing the country’s urgent needs. These organizations go beyond delivering humanitarian assistance, actively engaging in peacebuilding, gender equality, cultural preservation, and social cohesion—contributing to long-term resilience and stability. However, collaboration between international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and CSOs is often hindered by imbalanced power dynamics, with INGOs frequently dominating decision-making processes and overshadowing local priorities. This research examines the complexities of these relationships within Yemen’s increasingly constrained civic space, where opportunities for equitable and authentic partnerships are steadily diminishing.

This absence of genuine partnerships between INGOs and CSOs has generated distrust. Consequently, these relationships have resulted in transactional rather than transformational partnerships between INGOs and CSOs, all while further entrenching uneven power relations, with INGOs often dominating decision-making processes and marginalizing the voices of local CSOs.² Transactional partnerships foster contractual relationships, which create power imbalances between INGOs (contractors) and CSOs (contractees) and stifle the development of social capital necessary for participatory problem-solving, and thus, sustainable and effective aid interventions in Yemen.³ In response, this report offers pathways towards fostering genuine and equitable partnerships for the long term and for the effective impact of aid interventions in Yemen.

The debriefs draws on diverse experiences through extended conversations with 12 CSOs (in Aden, Taiz, Marib, Lahj, al-Mahrah, al-Dhale, and Hadhramaut), both established and small community-based organizations (CBOs). It recognizes that that not all CSOs navigate donor and INGO relationships in the same way. While more established CSOs may have the capacity to negotiate and align external agendas with their own missions, smaller, less established CBOs are often compelled to shift their focus from their original missions to accommodate donor and INGO priorities, reflecting the power imbalances inherent in these relationships.

Structural Power Dynamics Constrain Partnership

The interactions between INGOs and CSOs in Yemen are often shaped by broader structural hierarchies that can inadvertently marginalize CSOs, even when presented as equal partnerships. Despite well-intentioned efforts, INGOs, with their greater resources and influence, can unintentionally dominate decision-making processes. INGOs often retain significant control over project design, implementation, and evaluation, limiting the autonomy of local partners.⁴

A key driver of this imbalance is the hierarchical power structure between INGOs and CSOs. Power structure imbalances are reflected in the position of INGOs as dominant and CSOs as subordinate.⁵ Such hierarchies and uneven power dynamics have generated several issues. INGOs dominate in decision-making processes, relationships are transactional, there is inequitable resource allocation and limited capacity-building opportunities, and there are knowledge asymmetries—all of which hinder the development of sustainable and impactful collaborations.⁶

At the core of these challenges is the dominance of INGOs in decision-making processes, which reinforce existing unequal power structures and sideline the contributions of local CSOs, despite their critical grassroots knowledge and community presence.⁷ INGOs—with their access to greater financial resources, global networks, and institutional capacity—hold considerable leverage, often prioritizing donor agendas over long-term community needs. This imbalance perpetuates dependency relationships, reduces trust, and limits the potential for genuine partnerships that prioritize local agency, knowledge, and sustainability.⁸These uneven power relations can also manifest themselves through contractual relationships. Contractual arrangements often prioritize the interests of INGOs and donors, potentially limiting the flexibility and responsiveness of CSOs. Such relationships can reduce trust and hinder the development of genuine and transformational partnerships.⁹ INGOs, with their control over financial resources and global networks, dictate priorities and approaches, often relegating CSOs to subcontractor roles. Local organizations are typically tasked with implementing pre-designed projects, with minimal input in planning or decision-making. Such a dynamic disregards local insights, knowledge, and capacities. As one CSO representative said: “CSOs are often excluded from the project proposal stage. The relationship between NGOs and CSOs is often transactional, with NGOs contracting CSOs to implement pre-determined activities in specific locations.”¹⁰

Another issue is unequal resource allocation. Despite CSOs’ critical role in implementing projects, one CSO leader noted that only 20-30 per cent of project budgets typically reach them, with the remaining portion often allocated to INGO operational costs.¹¹ International organizations possess a significant advantage in terms of financial resources, allowing them to allocate substantial funds for operational expenses, unlike local CSOs that often struggle to secure adequate funding for their day-to-day operations.¹² This inequity hinders capacity-building efforts, and it perpetuates reliance on external funding. The impact of this unequal allocation, however, varies between CBOs and more established CSOs.

For CBOs, limited funding severely restricts their ability to maintain operations, build internal capacities, or invest in long-term organizational development. Many of these organizations face challenges in retaining skilled staff and are often compelled to compromise their agendas to align with donor priorities to secure funding. As a result, CBOs risk losing their autonomy and their ability to address community-specific needs effectively. Interviewees called for budget allocations to strengthen local partners, emphasizing, “Budgets should include items to enhance the capacities of local CSOs”.¹³

Conversely, more established CSOs, while still affected, may have greater resilience due to their existing capacities and resources. They can leverage their institutional knowledge and networks to mitigate the effects of limited budgets, though this often comes at the cost of reduced flexibility and innovation. For CBOs and established CSOs, the inequitable resource distribution underscores the need for more inclusive and equitable funding mechanisms that strengthen the operational sustainability of local partners.
While capacity building is often acknowledged as a key strategy for strengthening local CSOs, the effectiveness of such initiatives can be constrained by various factors, including the quality of training, the availability of resources, and the underlying intentions: are these initiatives genuinely aimed at capacity building or primarily designed to meet donor requirements? “Most trainings for civil society organizations are short-term, lack comprehensiveness, and are followed by little to no post-training support.”¹⁴ It is crucial to underscore the importance of a holistic approach to capacity building, encompassing factors such as financial sustainability and organizational development.¹⁵ These elements are crucial for enabling CSOs to achieve greater independence in their decision-making processes.

Knowledge asymmetry further compounds these challenges. While INGOs benefit from global expertise and advanced tools, CSOs often lack resources to compete on an equal footing. This marginalization prioritizes donor expectations over contextual relevance. This can lead to exclusion of local organizations from funding opportunities. Such exclusion highlights a significant challenge in the relationship between INGOs and CSOs in Yemen, particularly in marginalized regions like al-Mahrah and Lahj. Many INGOs and donors direct their funding to larger, often external organizations, overlooking the capacity and potential of local partners. This practice not only sidelines local CSOs, their agency, and knowledge but also undermines their ability to sustain operations and contribute meaningfully to community development based on local insights.

As one CBO representative from al-Mahrah said, “around 200 CSOs in al-Mahrah have closed because funding is allocated to external organizations, bypassing local partners”. This sentiment underscores the marginalization of grassroots organizations that are deeply embedded in the communities they serve. By neglecting local entities, INGOs risk losing critical local insights and the trust of the very communities they aim to support. Moreover, this funding model perpetuates a cycle of dependency on external actors, stifling the growth and sustainability of local organizations that are essential for fostering long-term resilience and development in Yemen.

Furthermore, hierarchical structures within INGO–CSO partnerships can exacerbate power imbalances and limit transparency among CSOs. In local consortium and alliance settings, leading CSOs often have direct relationships with donors, while discussions about activity structures are conducted bilaterally, excluding other CSOs. This lack of transparency and information sharing can hinder effective collaboration among CSOs. As one established CSO representative noted, “There is a lack of transparency, and some information regarding projects is disclosed only between the leading partners and the donor.”¹⁶

The intermediary roles of lead CSOs and INGOs can further exacerbate this issue. They may act as gatekeepers, controlling the flow of information and resources. This can lead to a situation where local frontline organizations, often best positioned to understand and address the needs of affected communities, receive a disproportionately small share of funding. This lack of transparency and equitable resource distribution undermines the principles of partnership and accountability, ultimately hindering the overall effectiveness of humanitarian interventions.

Ineffective Needs Assessments and Program Design

The hierarchical power relationship between INGOs and CSOs is particularly pronounced in needs assessments and program design, where the voices of CSOs—especially smaller ones—are frequently marginalized or erased. This dynamic perpetuates a persistent challenge in collaborative partnerships, as INGOs frequently employ top–down approaches that marginalize local perspectives and fail to adequately address community-specific needs, thereby undermining localization and reinforcing Western-centric aid paradigms. This brings the conversation back to the meaning of development aid and its historical/colonial legacy shaped by power imbalance, with the Global North often defining the terms of development and imposing their vision on the Global South.¹⁷

Project frameworks and needs assessments are often designed without substantial input from local stakeholders, for example, CBOs, leading to interventions that lack transparency and relevance. One CSO representative noted, “CSOs feel excluded from project design and needs assessments, resulting in a lack of transparency and relevance.”¹⁸ All CSOs share the same concern. Embracing bottom–up approaches, which prioritize grassroots movements and local knowledge, can empower communities to create innovative and sustainable solutions to their own challenges.¹⁹

Exclusion from participatory planning processes further alienates CSOs. Often confined to the implementation phase, these organizations lack ownership over projects meant to benefit their communities. As one CSO director explained, “Projects are momentary, with unclear sustainable impacts due to the absence of local involvement”. INGOs often pursue a project-based approach, focusing on achieving specific goals within a limited timeframe. While this strategy may be effective in certain contexts, such as humanitarian emergencies, it can hinder long-term development and empowerment of vulnerable communities.²⁰ Another respondent described the relationship as transactional: “CSOs are excluded from the proposal stage and contracted to implement pre-determined activities.” All interviewed CSOs shared the view that continuing to exclude CSOs from participatory planning would compromise the trust they have cultivated with the Yemeni community. They frequently encounter enquiries regarding the prioritization of certain interventions over more pressing needs.

Misaligned priorities waste resources and erode trust. For instance, hygiene promotion projects in famine-stricken areas fail to address urgent food security needs. One CBO representative stated, “How can people practice hygiene when they lack basic necessities like food?” Such disconnects undermine the effectiveness of humanitarian efforts.²¹

Additionally, and as agreed by all interviewed CSOs, assessments often fail to accurately capture the complex and evolving needs of the population, leading to misaligned interventions and wasted resources.²² This could possibly be a result of donor fatigue. After years of conflict and humanitarian appeals, donor fatigue sets in.²³ Donors may become less willing to allocate funds to Yemen, especially when competing with other global crises.²⁴ Many donor projects in Yemen have short timelines, focusing on immediate relief rather than long-term development, dictating project designs and timelines without sufficient consultation with local communities and CSOs, relying on INGOs pre-existing assessments, and unwilling to fund extensive needs assessments.²⁵

Furthermore, the misalignment between priorities can create a significant burden on CSOs. Balancing community expectations with INGO requirements can be challenging, sometimes forcing CSOs to utilize their own resources to ensure project success. As one CBO representative noted: “In one particular intervention, we had to divert funds from our open budget to pre-determined activities mandated by the INGO we were contracted with, in order to desensitize the community and gain their acceptance for these activities.”

Inadequate Capacity Building and Accountability

Capacity-building efforts within INGO–CSO partnerships in Yemen often fail to address long-term growth and sustainability. INGOs typically offer short-term training programs that provide surface-level knowledge without tackling structural challenges.

CSOs frequently struggle to enhance their capacities beyond the scope of their INGOs partnerships, as these initiatives are regularly designed to meet compliance and accountability requirements rather than fostering long-term organizational development.²⁶ Medium-sized CSOs and CBOs often encounter challenges in designing projects that align with INGO standards, as they lack the requisite advanced skills such as in areas such as grant and report writing, strategy development, budget management, and knowledge acquisition.²⁷ Consequently, their work is frequently dictated by INGO agendas and programs, with minimal involvement in needs assessment and design. Furthermore, financial constraints exacerbate this issue, with CSOs struggling to secure resources for skilled personnel, technology, and infrastructure. Medium- and small-scale organizations are disproportionately affected, as compliance-related costs consume up to 60 per cent of project budgets, leaving little for development.²⁸ Operational funding gaps force CSOs to redirect limited resources, further hindering their growth.

Accountability mechanisms are similarly flawed. INGOs often prioritize donor reporting over mutual accountability with local partners, re-enforcing a one-sided dynamic. This perpetuates mistrust and undermines equitable partnership; therefore, reinforcing existing uneven power relations. Project budgets are frequently not transparently shared with partner CSOs, and budgetary negotiations are rarely participatory. This lack of transparency limits the ability of CSOs to understand how funds are allocated and to advocate for increased resources for their programs. Additionally, feedback mechanisms and self-reflection exercises are often absent, hindering opportunities for learning and improvement. Donor feedback and reporting are not typically discussed with partner CSOs during project closure, limiting their ability to understand the overall impact of the intervention and to identify lessons learned.²⁹

As one CSO representative noted, “The expectation is that accountability flows solely from CSOs to INGOs, rather than being a reciprocal process”. This one-way accountability model reinforces the power imbalance and can lead to resentment and distrust among partner organizations. Due to the ongoing conflict in Yemen, donors often work remotely, further exacerbating the communication gap between donors and CSOs. INGOs frequently act as intermediaries, limiting direct interaction between donors and CSOs. This lack of direct dialogue raises questions about how donors receive project outcomes, how challenges are communicated, and how CSOs can engage with donors for further project discussions.³⁰

Localization Efforts Hindered and Intervention Relevance Reduced

Recent years have seen increased efforts by the international community to localize humanitarian and development projects in Yemen, as evidenced by the growing number of Yemeni partners and the percentage of projects led by Yemeni NGOs. However, data from the OCHA Financial Tracking Service indicates that the share of humanitarian funding received by Yemeni partners between 2018 and 2023 remained relatively low, at around 4 per cent. Additionally, the number of Yemeni partners decreased by approximately 18 per cent during this period. While there has been a slight increase in the percentage of funding allocated to Yemeni partners, both local and national, from 1 per cent in 2018 to 4 per cent in 2023, the overall share remains significantly low.³¹

The systemic challenges in INGO–CSO relationships undermine humanitarian outcomes, particularly by stifling local capacity and sustainability. Despite commitments to localization, Yemen’s response remains dominated by international actors, sidelining CSOs from meaningful roles. This marginalization prevents the integration of local insights, resulting in interventions disconnected from community realities. A 2022 baseline report on humanitarian localization in Yemen identified seven key pillars, including funding, as essential for measuring progress.³² While there was some evidence of moderate progress in participation, other indicators like capacity strengthening and direct funding for local NGOs remained challenging.³³ Therefore, overall progress in localization within the current humanitarian effort in Yemen is uneven.

Rigid donor frameworks increasingly hinder adaptability and innovation, which is a key for equitable partnership. As one CBO leader noted, “We know what works in our communities, but donor guidelines leave no room for adaptation”. Poorly designed interventions usually fail to deliver long-term benefits, as highlighted by one participant: “Projects lack sustainable impact due to the absence of local voices.” While larger, well-established CSOs may have more room to negotiate interventions’ adaptability to meet community needs, they often face similar challenges in terms of power dynamics and financial sustainability.

However, smaller CBOs, particularly those with limited resources and capacity, are more vulnerable to the pressures of INGO partners. Fear of losing contracted partnerships can limit their ability to engage in open dialogue with INGOs about necessary changes to interventions. A representative from a local CBO in al-Dhale highlighted the unfairness of grants applications processes: “The requirements were disproportionate to their capacity, often mirroring those of well-established national organizations. Despite their local knowledge and community trust, they were excluded due to their inability to meet bureaucratic standards.” This leads to frustration among CSOs, as the lack of opportunities hinders localization at grassroots level. Ultimately, the competition revolves around who is eligible to meet the requirement to implement the pre-designed projects. This leaves CSOs in general and specifically CBOs with no option but to implement projects as prescribed, or, in the case of larger CSOs with more financial stability, refuse to participate in the partnership altogether.³⁴ Neither scenario aligns with localization efforts. Furthermore, the lack of accountability and transparency in the delivery of aid, coupled with the over-reliance on INGOs, creates dependency and undermines local capacity and knowledge, leading to short-term effects. For instance, The Yemen Humanitarian Response Plans of 2017 and 2018 marked Yemen’s adoption of the global shift towards accountability to affected people (AAP).³⁵ However, while there have been some improvements, a significant gap remains between the principles of AAP and their practical implementation. A lack of coherence among different actors in Yemen regarding AAP practices and a shared understanding of its meaning has hindered progress in this area.³⁶ CSOs often lack transparency into the funding distribution process and the design of interventions, limiting their ability to effectively contribute to the humanitarian response narratives.

Prioritizing Localization and Empowering CSOs Can Create Pathways to True Partnership

To address these challenges and foster genuine partnerships, it is imperative to prioritize localization and empower local CSOs. By adopting a localization agenda, donors and INGOs can shift towards a more equitable and sustainable approach to humanitarian aid. This involves sharing decision-making power, providing flexible funding, and creating enabling environments for CSOs to operate independently. By fostering genuine partnerships, INGOs and CSOs can work collaboratively to identify local needs, develop appropriate solutions, and ensure long-term impact.

The following recommendations are designed to promote genuine partnerships, reduce power imbalances, and enhance the effectiveness of humanitarian interventions in Yemen.

Recommendations for CSOs

To strengthen their position and impact, CSOs should focus on building their capacity across key areas, including financial management, project cycle management, advanced monitoring and evaluation, and data analysis. These core competencies are essential for enhancing project management capabilities, improving organizational credibility, and attracting more funding opportunities. Strengthening technical skills not only enables CSOs to deliver more effective interventions but also reduces their dependency on INGOs, empowering them to negotiate more equitable and sustainable partnerships.

One critical step for CSOs is improving their financial policies and practices. By enhancing transparency, accountability, and efficiency in financial management, CSOs can build donor and international partner confidence. This includes adopting robust accounting systems, undergoing regular audits, and ensuring compliance with donor requirements. Strong financial policies position CSOs as reliable and professional partners, opening the door to greater support and collaboration.

Strategic partnerships with INGOs that share similar values and objectives can also provide access to much-needed resources, expertise, and networks. Such alliances enable CSOs to expand their reach and increase their impact. However, it is essential that these partnerships are founded on mutual respect, shared decision-making, and a commitment to avoiding power imbalances. CSOs must actively assert their agency within these collaborations to ensure that their priorities and missions remain central to the partnership.

Additionally, CSOs should engage more actively in policy dialogues and advocacy efforts. By participating in these discussions, CSOs can shape the humanitarian and development agendas and advocate for the specific needs of affected communities. This advocacy not only amplifies the voices of the communities they serve but also enhances the visibility and influence of CSOs at both national and international levels. Greater recognition can lead to increased support, resources, and opportunities to contribute meaningfully to broader development efforts, while asserting their role as equal partners in shaping the future of their communities.

Recommendations for INGOs

INGOs must reflect on uneven power relations to be able to prioritize the establishment of principled partnerships grounded in mutual respect, trust, and shared values. Transformational partnerships—that focus on collaboration and empowerment rather than mere transactional relationships—should be at the core of their approach. This requires INGOs to actively involve local CSOs in all stages of the project lifecycle, from needs assessments and program design to implementation and evaluation. Shared decision-making and meaningful capacity-building investments can address existing power imbalances, creating a foundation for genuine and equitable partnerships.

Empowering local CSOs through shared decision-making involves not just consulting them but ensuring their voices have equal weight in determining priorities, strategies, and resource allocation. Capacity-building efforts should move beyond short-term trainings to include ongoing mentorship, technical support, and organizational development initiatives that strengthen the financial and operational sustainability of local CSOs. This can help equip CSOs with the tools and confidence to assert their agency and maintain alignment with their missions while engaging with INGOs and donors.

To foster trust and accountability, INGOs should implement collaborative monitoring and evaluation frameworks. These frameworks should be designed to include input from CSOs and communities, allowing for iterative feedback and ensuring that interventions are contextually relevant and impactful. INGOs must also support local ownership and leadership by enabling CSOs to take a leading role in managing projects. This empowerment not only ensures the sustainability of interventions but also enhances the long-term resilience of communities, reducing dependency on external actors.

Community-driven approaches and flexible programming are essential for responding effectively to the dynamic and evolving needs of affected populations. INGOs must adopt a flexible approach to be able to prioritize listening to and incorporating the new perspectives of local communities in program design. Flexible funding mechanisms and programming allow for adaptability in addressing emerging challenges or opportunities, making aid delivery more efficient and impactful.

By adopting these strategies, INGOs can move toward partnerships that are not only more equitable but also more effective. This shift requires a commitment to sharing power, fostering local capacity, and embracing the principles of localization and sustainability, thereby enabling affected communities to take ownership of their development and build long-term resilience.

Recommendations for Donors

It is crucial to underscore the importance of a holistic approach to capacity building, one that goes beyond providing short-term training sessions or fulfilling donor requirements. This approach must integrate financial sustainability, ensuring that local CSOs have the skills and resources to secure diverse funding streams and reduce their reliance on INGOs and external donors. Financial sustainability can be fostered through donors’ support for income-generating activities, strategic financial planning, and access to flexible funding mechanisms, such as multi-year funding and unrestricted core funding. These mechanisms can help strengthen CSOs’ resilience in the face of short-term funding cycles, allowing CSOs to focus on long-term development goals while remaining aligned with their core missions.

Additionally, organizational development should be a cornerstone of capacity-building efforts. This involves strengthening internal governance, enhancing operational processes, and building robust monitoring and evaluation systems. For smaller CSOs, this could mean prioritizing foundational training on financial management, strategic planning, and compliance with donor regulations. For more established CSOs, it could focus on leadership development, advocacy skills, and fostering regional and international networks. To support these transformations, donors can play a pivotal role by adopting flexible funding mechanisms. Multi-year funding and unrestricted core funding empower CSOs to plan strategically, invest in long-term capacity building, and respond to dynamic contexts.

Empowering local leadership is another key strategy. This can be achieved by involving CSOs more substantively in decision-making processes, particularly in setting funding agendas. Alongside this, fostering trust and transparency between INGOs, donors, and CSOs is critical. Open communication, mutual accountability, and opportunities for joint learning and adaptation can create stronger and more equitable partnerships.

Finally, prioritizing localization and sustainability requires donors to fund strategic partnerships that enhance the autonomy of CSOs. Policy dialogues that advocate for localization and equitable power-sharing within the aid sector can further these efforts. Comprehensive capacity-building initiatives that focus both on financial and organizational dimensions should also be implemented, incorporating mentorships, long-term technical support, and tailored trainings to address the specific needs of CSOs. By embracing these practices, donors and INGOs can foster genuine partnerships, reduce power imbalances, and enable sustainable, community-driven development.

Shaima Bin Othman is a Yemen Policy Center Research Analyst and a co-founder of Madarat Cultural Organization. With over five years of experience in Yemen’s youth and cultural sectors, she leverages the arts for social change and advocates for peacebuilding and women’s political participation. A freelance writer, she is also a MEPI Tomorrow’s Leaders Scholar and holds a Master’s degree in Middle Eastern Studies from the American University of Beirut. Her work is rooted in fostering community engagement and advancing inclusive development initiatives.

Sanaa is an accomplished Monitoring and Evaluation expert with extensive experience leading and managing initiatives across diverse humanitarian sectors in Yemen. Her work demonstrates a strong commitment to ensuring program quality, effectiveness, and accountability. Her academic background is in Gender Studies and Non-profit Management, which underpins her expertise and dedication to impactful humanitarian work.

1. Elene Panchulidze, ‘A New Wave of Repression on Civic Space,’ European Democracy Hub, accessed January 23, 2025, https://europeandemocracyhub.epd.eu/a-new-wave-of-repression-on-civic-space/.
2. YPC interviews with representatives of CSOs from Aden, September 2024.
3. Ibid.
4. Colburn, M., ‘A New Path Forward: Empowering a Leadership Role for Yemeni Civil Society,’ 2 March 2021. Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies. https://sanaacenter.org/publications/main-publications/13021.
5. Green, Duncan, ‘Fixing the Power Imbalances of Aid and Development: A Paradox From Poverty to Power,’ 6 June 2023. https://frompoverty.oxfam.org.uk/mediating-the-power-imbalances-of-development-a-paradox-for-partnership-brokers/.
6. Fowler, A., ‘Authentic NGDO Partnerships in the New Policy Agenda for International Aid: Dead End or Light Ahead?’ 27 April 2017. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44823071_Authentic_NGDO_Partnerships_in_the_New_Policy_Agenda_for_International_Aid_Dead_End_or_Light_Ahead.
7. ‘Measuring Humanitarian Localisation in Yemen,’ 2022. https://www.icvanetwork.org/uploads/2023/02/Localisation-Baseline-Report-in-Yemen-ENG.pdf
8. Gilchrist, J., ‘Civil Society Conflict: The Negative Impact of International NGOs on Grassroots and Social Movements,’ 26 May 2021. Community Mobilization in Crisis. https://cmic-mobilize.org/civil-society-conflict-the-negative-impact-of-international-ngos-on-grassroots-and-social-movements/.
9. Ibid.
10. YPC interviews with female leader of a CSO from Taiz, September 2024.
11. YPC interviews with representatives of established CSO from Aden, October 2024.
12. Colburn, M., ‘A New Path Forward: Empowering a Leadership Role for Yemeni Civil Society,’ 2 March 2021. Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies. https://sanaacenter.org/publications/main-publications/13021.
13. YPC interview with female leader of a CBO from al-Mahrah, September 2024.
14. YPC interview with female leader of a CBO from al-Dhale, October 2024.
15. Koob, A., Ingulfsen, I., and Tolson, B., ‘Facilitating Financial Sustainability Funder Approaches to Facilitating CSO Financial Sustainability,’ 30 March 2018. Issue Lab – Candid’s Knowledge Management Platform. https://www.issuelab.org/resources/30587/30587.pdf.
16. YPC interviews with representatives of established CSOs from Hadhramaut, October 2024.
17. Isabekova, Gulnaz, ‘Theorizing Power in Political Ecology: The Where of Power in Resource Governance Projects,’ 2023. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320249414_Theorizing_power_in_political_ecology_The_where_of_power_in_resource_governance_projects.
18. YPC interviews with representatives of CSOs from Hadhramaut, October 2024.
19. Gilchrist, J., ‘Civil Society Conflict: The Negative Impact of International NGOs on Grassroots and Social Movements,’ 26 May 2021. Community Mobilization in Crisis. https://cmic-mobilize.org/civil-society-conflict-the-negative-impact-of-international-ngos-on-grassroots-and-social-movements/.
20. Ibid.
21. YPC interviews with representatives of CBO from Lahj, November 2024.
22. YPC interviews with representatives of CSOs from Marib, November 2024.
23. Elkahlout, G., and Abdo, B., ‘In a Critical Moment for Yemen, Donor Fatigue Can Have Disastrous Consequences,’ 12 September 2021. The Norwegian Centre for Humanitarian Studies. https://www.humanitarianstudies.no/in-a-critical-moment-for-yemen-donor-fatigue-can-have-disastrous-consequences/.
24. Al-Sakkaf, N., Harper, A., and Thorpe, J., ‘Development Is Coming: Be Careful What You Wish For,’ 13 March 2024. Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies. https://sanaacenter.org/publications/main-publications/21886.
25. YPC interviews with representatives of CSOs from Hadhramaut, October 2024.
26. YPC interviews with representatives of CSOs from Aden, October 2024.
27. YPC interviews with representatives of established CSO from Aden, November 2024.
28. YPC interviews with representatives of CSOs from Taiz, October 2024.
29. YPC interviews with representatives of CSOs from Hadhramaut, November 2024.
30. YPC interviews with representatives of CSOs from Aden, November 2024.
31. Al-Sakkaf, N., ‘Localizing Aid and Development in Yemen,’ 24 October 2024. Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies. https://sanaacenter.org/files/Localizing_Aid_and_Development_in_Yemen_en.pdf.
32. ‘Measuring Humanitarian Localisation in Yemen,’ 2022. https://www.icvanetwork.org/uploads/2023/02/Localisation-Baseline-Report-in-Yemen-ENG.pdf.
33. Ibid.
34. YPC interviews with representatives of CSOs from Marib, November 2024.
35. Bakhalah, S., ‘Yemenis Must Have a Say on What Aid in Yemen Looks Like,’ 21 March 2024. Yemen Policy Center. https://www.yemenpolicy.org/yemenis-must-have-a-say-on-what-aid-in-yemen-looks-like/.
36. Ibid.