Open Knowledge Space

Localisation is often presented as a way to make humanitarian response more equitable by shifting power, resources, and decision-making closer to crisis-affected communities. In practice, however, this shift is far from straightforward. Local actors are frequently asked to take on more responsibility without gaining equivalent authority, while existing political, organisational, and funding hierarchies can simply be reproduced at a different level.

This brief looks at what recent evidence tells us about when localisation becomes genuinely meaningful and when it risks becoming little more than subcontracting, burden-shifting, or a new form of unequal partnership.

At a glance

Sources reviewed: 12 reports, articles, and essays
Geographic focus: Global, with case studies from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and the Caribbean
Date period: January 2018 - October 2026
Main themes: localisation, locally led humanitarian action, power and decision-making, direct and quality funding, risk-sharing, accountability, equitable partnerships, capacity sharing, coordination, and inequalities within local systems

Brief overview

Localisation in humanitarian response is undergoing significant scrutiny and debate, with evidence showing both substantial opportunities and persistent structural challenges. While local and community-led actors demonstrate strong capacity, contextual knowledge, and ability to reach vulnerable populations, the humanitarian system has failed to translate localisation commitments into meaningful power shifts or adequate funding. Only 9.5% of international humanitarian funding reached local and national actors in 2024, with direct funding at just 3.8%, far below the 25% Grand Bargain target. Localisation efforts frequently reproduce existing inequalities within local systems, remain driven by cost-efficiency rather than genuine empowerment, and can become subcontracting arrangements that transfer risk without transferring authority. Meaningful localisation requires system-level reform including direct and flexible funding, genuine decision-making power, simplified compliance systems, and recognition that local response ecosystems already exist independently of international actors. Evidence from Sudan, South Sudan, Bangladesh, DRC, and multiple other contexts shows that local organisations deliver frontline services, coordinate effectively, and maintain community trust, yet remain chronically underfunded and excluded from strategic decisions. The most transformative approaches involve long-term partnerships, capacity sharing rather than capacity building, decentralised decision-making, and international actors supporting rather than dominating local systems.

Insights

The most important insights and observations.

• Localisation commitments have not translated into funding or power shifts: only 9.5% of international humanitarian funding reached local and national actors in 2024, with direct funding at 3.8%, and no crisis context met the 25% Grand Bargain target between 2022 and 2024.
• Local and community-led actors demonstrate strong operational capacity and legitimacy, delivering frontline response, maintaining community trust, and reaching populations international organisations cannot access, yet receive minimal direct funding and remain excluded from strategic decision-making.
• Localisation often reproduces rather than reduces inequalities: it can reinforce hierarchies among local actors, concentrate resources among larger organisations, marginalise smaller and community-based groups, and transfer risk without transferring authority.
• Meaningful localisation requires system-level reform including direct and flexible funding, genuine decision-making power, simplified compliance systems, and recognition that local response ecosystems already exist independently of international actors.

Patterns & Trends

Recurring patterns across the evidence, including repeated challenges, common themes, and emerging opportunities.

• Compliance and administrative burden reproduction: donor requirements designed for large international organisations are imposed on local actors, constraining flexibility, requiring restructuring around international systems, and excluding grassroots organisations unable to meet complex procedures.
• Local actors face disproportionate security risks and operational challenges: community-led responders operate in the most dangerous environments, receive smaller budgets with less overhead funding, face political pressure and criminalisation, yet remain chronically underfunded relative to their frontline role.
• Persistent gap between localisation rhetoric and practice: high-level commitments and policy frameworks repeatedly fail to produce system-wide change, with localisation remaining confined to small-scale pilots while funding structures and decision-making power remain internationally controlled.
• Localisation driven by cost-efficiency rather than empowerment: international organisations increasingly use localisation to reduce costs by shifting to cheaper local implementers, which produces very different outcomes from localisation aimed at redistributing power and increasing local ownership.

Comparisons

Comparisons and contrasts found in sources between this topic and other connected topics.

• DRC's PHASE programme demonstrates how localisation can strengthen local markets and economic resilience when integrated with cash assistance and vendor engagement, but requires long-term support and capacity building for local businesses.
• West Africa Ebola response in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia shows that working through local associations, authorities, and community actors improved trust and enabled community-based surveillance, but lockdowns and top-down measures damaged livelihoods and undermined local cooperation.
• Lebanon's cash and food assistance reached 400,000 people in shelters within 24 hours through preparedness, supply chains, local partnerships, and flexible multi-year funding, demonstrating how localisation combined with adequate resources can achieve rapid scale.
• Ukraine shows local intermediaries were 32% more cost-efficient than international ones while providing contextual advantages, and due diligence passporting reduced administrative burdens, suggesting efficiency gains are possible without sacrificing quality.
• Bangladesh's Rohingya response shows localisation creating unintended consequences including competition and fragmentation among local NGOs, staff poaching by international organisations, and asymmetric accountability where local organisations bear responsibility for internationally designed programmes.
• Turkey and Dominica cases show that localisation can reinforce existing power inequalities within countries: national governments and politically aligned organisations received more resources and decision-making power, while community-based and refugee-led organisations remained marginalised despite being closer to affected populations.
• East Asia and south-east asia demonstrate alternative localisation models through national ownership and regional mechanisms: countries like Indonesia and the Philippines developed strong national disaster-management capacity and regional coordination through ASEAN, reducing dependence on international humanitarian systems.
• Sudan shows the most developed local response ecosystem with Emergency Response Rooms, women-led networks, and diaspora support delivering frontline services at scale, yet receives minimal direct international funding despite evidence of strong coordination and accountability capacity.
• South Sudan demonstrates how localisation rhetoric masks continued subcontracting: despite a decade of localisation commitments, direct funding to South Sudanese NGOs remained around 1.45% in 2023-24, with international organisations retaining programme design control.

Knowledge gaps

Areas where the available evidence is limited, incomplete, or where further learning is needed.

• Lack of clarity on how to balance local leadership with protection of vulnerable groups: evidence on how to ensure localisation does not marginalise minority rights, gender equality, or protection of excluded populations when decision-making shifts to local actors remains limited.
• Limited evidence on long-term sustainability and impact of localisation initiatives: most studies focus on short-term outcomes, while evidence on whether local organisations can sustain services and institutional capacity over time remains insufficient.
• Insufficient understanding of how localisation affects different types of local actors: evidence on outcomes for women-led organisations, refugee-led groups, community-based organisations, and smaller rural actors remains limited compared to data on larger national NGOs.

Potential actions

Suggested actions and next steps.

• Shift from capacity building to capacity sharing: recognise existing local expertise and create reciprocal learning relationships rather than assuming capacity only flows from international to local actors.
• Increase direct funding to local and national actors with multi-year, flexible grants that include overhead costs and allow organisations to set priorities, rather than short-term earmarked funding that maintains international control.
• Simplify compliance and due diligence systems through passporting, harmonised vetting, and locally designed accountability systems that reduce administrative burden while maintaining donor confidence.
• Ensure local actors participate in needs assessment, programme design, and strategic decision-making from the beginning, not only at implementation stage, and provide mechanisms for local organisations to hold international partners accountable.

Sources

• Barakat, Sultan, and Sansom Milton. “Localisation across the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 15, no. 2 (2020): 147–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1542316620922805.
• Morlino, Irene. Rep. The End of Humanitarian Aid (as We Know It)? LSE, 2026.
• Robinson, Alice. “Localisation without Transformation: Dynamics of ‘Localisation’ in South Sudan’s Humanitarian Arena.” Development in Practice 36, no. 6 (2026): 1139–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2026.2662955.
• Gómez, Oscar A. “Localisation or Deglobalisation? East Asia and the Dismantling of Liberal Humanitarianism.” Third World Quarterly 42, no. 6 (2021): 1347–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2021.1890994.
• Howson, Kia. “To Reform or Replace: Why Localisation Needs a Social Justice Lens.” Start Network, August 4, 2026. https://startnetwork.org/whats-new/news-and-blogs/reform-or-replace-why-localisation-needs-social-justice-lens.
• McGrath, Michael, Gülşah Kurt, Erin Davis, et al. “The Localisation of Humanitarian Response to Conflict and Displacement: A Scoping Review from a Health Systems Perspective.” BMJ Global Health 10, no. 9 (2025): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-018331.
• Koch, Dirk-Jan, and Axel Rooden. “Understanding and Addressing the Unintended Effects of Aid Localisation.” Development in Practice 34, no. 3 (2024): 351–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2024.2303666.
• Pearson, Mike, and Niklas Rieger. Rep. The State of International Humanitarian Funding to Local and National Actors. ODI Global, 2026.
• ALNAP, Localisation and Locally-Led Action, Essential Briefings for Humanitarian Decision-Makers (London: ALNAP, August 2026). 
• Khan, Abdul Kadir, and Abdul Mannan. “Unintended Consequences of Localization Agenda: Insights from Rohingya Humanitarian Response in Bangladesh.” Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 34, no. 6 (2025): 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/dpm-04-2025-0117.
• Finlay, Emily. “Interrogating Localisation from Social Justice Perspectives.” Development in Practice 36, no. 6 (2026): 999–1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2026.2697232.
• Koeijer, Valerie de, and Bilge Sahin. “Localisation beyond the International–Local Divide: Paternalism and Politicisation in Humanitarian Response in Dominica and Turkey.” Disasters 50, no. 4 (2026): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.70069.

Access the Open Knowledge Space to explore the full Sudan learning brief and related evidence.