Managing partnerships remotely

What is remote partnership management?

When roads close, security changes or travel is restricted, international staff cannot visit the project. Funders and intermediaries then manage by phone, messaging and reports. The Limited Access guidance describes this as handing some or all operational responsibilities, usually held by senior experienced staff, to junior staff or external partners.

It is a spectrum. At one end is "remote control": senior staff withdraw but keep nearly all decisions. At the other end is "remote partnership", a near complete handover of responsibilities to local actors, with the international partner mainly providing funding. Most partnerships fall between the two.

For a local organisation, the useful question is: where are we on this line, and are we being given the authority that matches our responsibility?

What are the main risks?

The guidance lists problems that arise when access is limited: insecurity, higher risk of aid diversion, weaker relationships with affected communities, and the risk of doing harm by accident. It also stresses that remote methods should not replace in-person visits where locations are accessible.

Another risk is overload. The same guidance lists "ensure duty of care and avoid risk transfer to partners and staff" among its top ten good practices. If a local partner receives more responsibility but no extra budget, no training and no security support, the partnership is remote in name but unsafe in practice. Read risk sharing between international and local partners for how to raise this.

How should you set up a remote partnership?

The Humanitarian Advisory Group's guidance note gives a clear first step: co-design projects that will be managed remotely with local and national partners, drawing on their knowledge and relationships. It suggests discussing which programme management areas partners will manage and which need extra remote support.

Use this sequence:

1. Agree who decides what. Make a one-page list of decisions: changes to activities, budget moves within limits, beneficiary selection, security calls. Mark each as "local partner decides", "decide together" or "partner proposes, funder approves".
2. Adapt the systems. HAG notes that actors can adapt standard systems in finance, monitoring, reporting, training and human resources to support remote management. Ask the partner what will work in its setting, for example mobile payments or simplified templates.
3. Plan for flexibility. The HARP-F review of remote partnerships in Myanmar recommends including a flexible, unallocated budget line for new emergency response, which let partners react quickly.
4. Set the communication rhythm. A weekly check-in, a monthly review and a clear route for urgent issues. Agree the channel, time and language.
5. Fund support costs. The same review recommends funding core costs of national partners, in addition to the administrative overhead on project grants. See why local partners need overhead too.

How do you monitor without visiting?

Remote data is easy to question, so plan the monitoring carefully. The Limited Access guidance recommends two practices that fit together: "monitor, but keep it simple", and triangulate data sources for assessment, monitoring and feedback.

The HARP-F review suggests several routes for Myanmar: an autonomous third-party monitoring capacity, digital tools to cross-check data, and peer monitoring on the ground by national partners. It also recommends community-based delivery and monitoring structures that involve project participants.

A simple triangulation set might be:

Never record sensitive details, such as exact locations or names, in shared files if that could put people at risk. For more on this, see remote monitoring when staff cannot reach project sites.

How can trust grow into lighter oversight?

One HARP-F recommendation is especially useful for local partners: set out clear, achievable criteria for trust and low-risk operations, with incentives, so that national partners have a pathway to a light-touch partnership. Once criteria are met, a partner might use its own systems for reporting or take more programme decisions without prior consultation.

If your partner does not offer this, propose it. Suggest three or four measurable criteria: timely reports, clean financial reviews, accurate monitoring checks and no unresolved safeguarding concerns. Ask for a review date, for example after six months, when oversight will be reduced if the criteria are met.

What mistakes should you avoid?

• Treating remote management as permanent control. If a partner proves reliable, oversight should ease.
• Adding reports instead of trust. More forms do not replace relationships.
• Ignoring staff wellbeing. Remote responsibility can mean long hours and personal risk. See duty of care for staff in insecure settings.
• Skipping the budget. Phone credit, secure devices, extra staff time and monitoring all need funds.

How EMPO can help

EMPO is a reliable training and consultancy provider based in Yangon, and one of Myanmar's leading names in practical NGO training, with 1,200+ people trained and 15 partner organisations. We work in English and Burmese, online and in person across Myanmar. We can help teams build monitoring routines, partner reporting templates and project management skills for remote work. See our services or contact us.

Sources

• Remote Humanitarian Management and Programming: Guidance Note — Humanitarian Advisory Group and CARE, 2020
• HARP-F Approach to Remote Partnership in Myanmar — Peter Medway, supported by UK aid
• Limited Access Humanitarian Programming: Operational guidance for managing programme quality — Peta Sandison, 2017