Joint Emergency Response in Ukraine (JERU) Lessons Learnt

In the face of one of Europe’s largest emergencies in recent history, Concern Worldwide (CWW) and Welthungerhilfe (WHH) came together to do something previously untried for their organisations: we established a single, unified country mission under a joint structure, pooling systems, funding, staff, management oversight, and strategic decision-making.

Rather than operate side by side, the two organizations merged their in-country presence into one operational footprint with one country director (CD), one programme strategy, one organogram – yet the strength of two International Nongovernmental Organizations (INGOs) stood behind it. This bold approach enabled the mission to scale up faster, reach more people, reduce duplication, and work with partners in a coordinated, impactful way.

It was widely agreed by the participants of this review that individually WHH and CWW would not have been able to launch such a large, multi-faceted and successful emergency response. And the numbers support this; from 2022-2024, Joint Emergency Response in Ukraine (JERU) reached over 321,000 people across Ukraine with humanitarian, protection, and livelihood support. It has mobilized over €85.6 million in funding, while programming in a locally led manner that was well recognized by local partners as empowering and complimentary.

With this perceived success as a backdrop, the organizations decided the time was right to step back and ask:

What worked? What were the frictions? And could this approach, in whole or in part be scaled and replicated to other crises and contexts?

To answer these, the Pause Reflect and Adapt (PR&A) methodology was employed to meet and discuss with dozens of key stakeholders. Key findings include:

JERU proved that two INGOs can operate as one country mission, with a shared staffing structure and lead agency responsibilities. While harmonizing systems like finance and procurement was challenging, and the rigidity of finance systems was the most often cited barrier in many sections, workarounds and collaborative problem-solving allowed the mission to function effectively. Currently many involved did not see much difference between JERU and a ‘regular’ Country Office (CO) in terms of functioning, the ultimate expression of success in this regard.

Overall country-level collaboration was strong and identity was clear and Joint Management Oversight Group (JMOG) ensured strategic alignment: staff largely saw themselves as part of JERU, not separate agencies. However, at the community/partner level and HQ levels clarity of JERU/ CWW/ WHH roles, and identity could be improved.

The joint setup unlocked more donor opportunities, reduced overhead costs, and allowed for greater reach. By sharing structures, more funding went directly into programming. While this was often expressed it was not quantifiably studied under this PR&A process and should be as it would be a key advocacy point for future joint initiatives. Communications was one area where efficiency was not particularly strong but ways to reduce this are ongoing and should be continued.

The mission adapted quickly to dynamic field needs-whether by opening new offices, shifting to recovery programming, or piloting local partner contracts using zero-value agreements. However, some HQ systems – especially around partner contracting – proved rigid and slow to adjust. This rigidity, however, was not more so than a single organization country structure.
 

JERU was consistently praised for listening to and empowering local and national partners. Survey results showed 100% of partners felt the collaboration was respectful, relevant, and worth continuing although some paperwork and bureaucratic hurdles were cited for improvement. The commitment to locally led programming from the design stage by both parties was a key to this success.

JERU’s model is replicable – but not plug-and-play. It requires clear strategic alignment, early decisions on leadership and systems, and mutual commitment and trust. The Checklist and Good Practice Library annexed to this report offers practical tools for faster and more effective replication. Overall, many involved in the review felt that the joint approach should be explored for new emergency responses undertaken by the organizations.

This report offers not only a reflection on JERU’s journey – but a clear reference point and roadmap for those who want to build similar joint missions. It shows that deep collaboration can work, even across complex organizations, and that the gains – efficiency, scale, impact, and learning – are well worth the effort.
JERU succeeded not because it was easy, but because it was ambitious, values–driven, and responsive. Its lessons are laid out below for others to use, adapt, and improve upon.