Localisation: We All Want It, Yet We’re Getting in Each Other’s Way

Everyone supports localisation. We believe in it and are committed to it. Yet in practice, progress is far slower and more difficult than our rhetoric suggests. What is holding it back—and what needs to change?

It is encouraging to see that in a polarised world full of divisions, there remains surprising support for localisation. Across the political spectrum—both the left and the right—there is broad agreement on the value and importance of locally led development.

The idea itself is not entirely new. In the 1990s, the focus was already on participation and community-based development. Still, real momentum only emerged in the past decade, particularly following the 2016 Istanbul Summit and the Grand Bargain, which acted as a key driver. 

The Grand Bargain established agreements among donors, UN agencies, NGOs, and the Red Cross, with shared goals that included greater funding flexibility and predictability, a shift toward cash-based interventions, and increased support for local organisations through capacity strengthening and larger budgets.

We are moving towards a world in which power relations are far more balanced than in previous decades—a world in which traces of colonisation are being erased, and where we learn to listen first, rather than imposing our implementation models and theories. 

There is no space to question the imposition of our cultural values openly. Local organisations are becoming more active, vocal, and better equipped to articulate the needs they identify and the approaches they believe are most appropriate. And rightly so.

Yet the localisation process remains fraught with contradictions, and the gap between theory and practice remains considerable. While the development community increasingly echoes the call for locally led initiatives, partnership equality remains elusive. A closer look reveals several systemic obstacles that hinder truly locally driven development.

One major issue lies in how local NGOs are shaped by Western development paradigms. Their success often hinges on how well they align with international norms—focusing on efficiency, measurable results, and adherence to external standards. As a result, many local organisations begin to mirror their international counterparts. 

While this may grant them recognition and resources, it also raises the question: Does this truly lead to locally led development? Are these organisations truly local if they must adapt to Western models to thrive? The risk is a loss of contextual and cultural richness, reinforcing the same power dynamics that localisation is meant to challenge. 

A genuinely locally led model would empower organisations to define success on their terms and remain rooted in their unique working ways. For development to be sustainably and genuinely locally led, local actors must be in the driving seat—designing and shaping approaches they deem most appropriate. This requires humility and a willingness to listen to international actors.

Closely related is the issue of how we measure localisation. Current metrics, such as the proportion of funding channelled through local partners—as seen in frameworks like the Grand Bargain—offer limited insight into the actual quality of local engagement. 

To date, it is mostly donors and international organisations setting the priorities, with local partners at best implementing part of them—leaving entrenched power structures intact. What matters more is the actual impact of local involvement, the level of control local actors have over processes, and the extent to which their visions and needs shape decision-making.

Qualitative indicators—around influence, participation, mandate, and decision-making power—should lead the way in measuring localisation.

Further complicating matters is the blurred distinction between what is deemed ‘local’ and ‘international.’ An NGO that is locally led in practice may still be considered international due to its legal registration. Conversely, international NGOs sometimes establish ‘local’ branches that meet the letter—but not the spirit—of localisation. 

These manoeuvres satisfy donor requirements while leaving power structures intact. Here, too, new criteria are needed to define ‘locally led.’ The essence of what is local should not be based on legal status, but rather on the degree of equality in relationships and the genuine willingness to let local voices take the lead.

At the same time, the few local organisations capable of meeting donor requirements often face overwhelming demands. They are rewarded with more contracts, but each comes with complex compliance obligations, leading to excessive bureaucratic pressure. 

Meanwhile, smaller or emerging organisations are often left behind. A more balanced approach would involve coordinated efforts among donors and INGOs to nurture a wider ecosystem—giving newer local actors the time and support to grow on their own terms.

The challenge is compounded by the way some local NGOs operate. While many are born of genuine community needs, others emerge primarily as vehicles to access funding. In a sector involving billions, this is not surprising. 

But when financial incentives dominate, questions arise about sustainability and integrity. The most impactful organisations tend to be those with deep community roots and intrinsic motivation to drive change—criteria that should carry more weight than donor compliance capacity.

Moreover, the assumption that locally led development is inherently cheaper or more efficient does not always hold. Local partners are increasingly expected to meet the same rigorous demands as international actors, often without equivalent resources. 

Administrative and capacity-building costs continue to rise, challenging the perception that localisation is a cost-saving strategy. Local organisations deserve to be treated equally, including in the funding they receive for project delivery. Efficiency should not be the main metric—local ownership and embeddedness must take precedence.

Another layer of complexity involves the tension between neutrality and ethnic dynamics. Local organisations, deeply embedded in their communities, may naturally lean toward helping those within their ethnic or social group. While understandable, this poses a challenge to the principle of impartiality that underpins humanitarian aid. 

Expecting local actors to transcend these biases entirely is unrealistic. This dilemma requires the involvement of multiple actors—sometimes including international ones—to uphold objectivity and accountability. We must better appreciate the specific contexts in which local organisations operate.

Localisation also brings heightened exposure to corruption risks. Local actors often operate without the same institutional buffers or legal protections as international NGOs. Transparency remains limited, and efforts to address fraud can provoke disproportionate donor responses. 

To move forward, the sector must explore more context-appropriate and constructive ways to tackle corruption, including rethinking punitive responses and promoting more nuanced, collaborative solutions.

Risk sharing is another area where inequalities persist. Most development work occurs in fragile contexts, often involving significant risk. However, almost all liability falls on either local organisations or the international NGOs that contract them. 

When local organisations contract directly with donors, they assume the full risk—despite frequently lacking the capacity to do so. In the meantime, international NGOs are typically held accountable for the entire contract, including the local component. 

Donors still exhibit far too little flexibility in adapting their accountability requirements to the capacities of local actors. Nonetheless, expecting international NGOs to bear all risks is also unrealistic. Donors who value localisation should reconsider risk-sharing policies to create a more equitable playing field.

Finally, at the heart of the localisation debate lies a fundamental truth: the origin of funding continues to shape the direction of development. ‘He who pays decides’ remains an unspoken rule, reinforcing an imbalance between donors and recipients. 

Even as donor priorities evolve, the power to set agendas and define impact still resides with those controlling the purse strings. This tension—between accountability to funders and the vision of community-led change—must be confronted directly. Until we address these double standards, localisation will remain more aspiration than reality.

In conclusion, these obstacles reveal that the transition to locally led development raises many important questions that deserve honest discussion. There is a clear mismatch between the ideals we claim to support and the policy frameworks that often prevent their realisation. 

The lack of flexibility and leniency directly contradicts localisation ambitions. Moreover, many ‘successes’ reported are only partial evidence of real change in the power dynamics between donors, and international and local actors.

It is high time we confront these dilemmas transparently and discuss them with more openness than we have managed so far.

Bio

Edwin Visser is the Chief Programme Officer at ZOA, an NGO specialising in humanitarian aid and reconstruction across 15 countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. ZOA is supported by a large base of private donors in the Netherlands, alongside institutional funding. Before joining ZOA’s Executive Board in 2019, Edwin spent 20 years working in media and emergency response in countries including Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Egypt.