This post is written by Vijayalakshmi Viswanathan, lead researcher and author of NEAR’s report, Building More Locally-Led Aid Ecosystems: 2025 Insights from Global South Civil Society. Drawing on the inputs and insights generated through this flagship research, the post highlights the lived realities and shared experiences that echoed across regions.

“Whose ‘localisation’? A gap between rhetoric and realities on the ground 

‘Localisation’ as a concept has become an accepted idea across the formal international sector. It has become the norm for international actors to build country-based expertise into proposals and plans (often asked for by donors); to implement projects through national and local actors (with the cost efficiency and access arguments still at the forefront); or (to a lesser extent) give visibility to their ‘local partners’.

Despite efforts to broaden and deepen the idea of localisation, progress has primarily been measured by direct-as-possible funding and representation in coordination systems. These have therefore dominated conversations. While important and necessary, even these two indicators have not moved much. Representation continues to feel tokenistic, and across the humanitarian system only 3.6 per cent of all funding went directly to local and national organisations in 2024.

These narrow focuses also have a limiting effect on how ‘localised’ aid delivery continues to be perceived – as a top-down system following the traditional flow of money from donor to UN/INGO intermediaries to national/local partners and so on. As a national practitioner from Yemen commented, “We are not yet ready to practice the true definition of localisation – it remains a fundraising place, a place to practice the Grand Bargain. If you don’t like it and there is another local organisation who is willing to compromise, then many donors have taken advantage of it.”  …