Back to Localisation Dashboard
— PRISM in Focus
Localisation and Locally Led Humanitarian Aid
The humanitarian system confronts a structural crisis of unprecedented depth. According to the OECD DAC Preliminary ODA figures, humanitarian aid has fallen by 35.8% to $15.5 billion — a devastating contraction at a time when the UN estimates record numbers of people in need. Despite the Grand Bargain target of channelling 25% of humanitarian funding as directly as possible to local and national responders, meaningful progress on localisation and locally led action has been slow.
— The promise · 2016
A power shift, committed in writing: a quarter of funding to local and national actors.
Pledged share to local & national actors, "as directly as possible"
Grand Bargain (2016), IASC.
— The reality · 2019–2024
Despite years of high-level commitments, meaningful progress on localisation and locally led action has been slow.
Counting every channel, including funding that passes through a UN partner, the share to local and national actors reached 9.5% in 2024, but UN partner data only became public from 2022, so part of that rise is better reporting, not new money. Strip out the UN partner channel and the share is 5.3%; count only what reaches them directly and it is 3.9%. All three sit far below the 25% Grand Bargain target, and a contracting aid envelope is squeezing them further.
— Funding to LNAs · 2019–2024
ODI / HPG — Pearson & Rieger (2026).
— Where it goes · 2024
The little that arrives is concentrated: local NGOs lead, governments and the Red Cross trail.
Volumes to local & national recipients, constant 2023 USD.
ODI / HPG — Pearson & Rieger (2026).
— Who funds the pooled funds · May 2026
Two systems within one.
US funding reflects a preference towards funding UN agencies, which have greater capacities to absorb large funding volumes and deliver assistance in short timeframes. This is particularly relevant given that the first US funding announcement stipulated a six-month time limit for spending the money, although the second announcement has extended the deadline to 12 months. As a result, large agencies disproportionately received the funding, with local organisations missing out.
ALNAP — Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) Report 2026.
— Provision of overhead to local and national organisations
Even when money arrives, the model keeps local organisations precarious.
Overheads — the cost of staff, safety and compliance — are capped at a 1990s relic of 7% against a real need of 27–30%. Without a resilient, diversified revenue base, every grant arrives at a structural loss. The withdrawal of USAID — and its 10% overhead floor for local actors — has made that base only harder to build.
ODI / HPG — Hassanien & Pearson (2026).
— The measurement gap
Comparison of Grand Bargain self-reporting and HPG analysis of independently verifiable datasets on funding to LNAs
Progress is only as real as what can be traced. Across the five largest UN intermediaries, self-reported funding to local and national actors diverges sharply from what can be independently verified — and the gap is not uniform.
At one extreme, WFP claims 1814m against 260m independently verified — a 7.0× overstatement. At the other, OCHA's country-based pooled funds reconcile almost exactly.
ODI / HPG — Pearson & Rieger (2026).
— The mechanisms
Beyond the CBPFs: a wider landscape of 90 active pooled funds.
While OCHA's country-based pooled funds manage a large share of pooled funding, they are not the whole picture. ICVA's mapping records other humanitarian pooled funds — 90 currently active — of which 20 are locally-led.
ICVA — Humanitarian Pooled Funds Mapping; on intermediary reform, ALNAP / ShareTrust (2025) and Featherstone & Mowjee (2020).
— Who they reach
By design, these funds reach national and local NGOs first.
ICVA — Humanitarian Pooled Funds Mapping.
— Beyond aid · a second ecosystem
Beyond the formal system sits a second ecosystem of resourcing.
It is hard to quantify — much of it never appears in official funding data — yet it plays a significant role in locally-led humanitarian action. A continuum runs from reform within the aid architecture to transformation beyond it.
— In closing
The crisis facing civil society financing is structural and political, requiring responses that address not only the quantum of funding but the power dynamics that determine who controls resources, who makes decisions, and who bears risk.
Back to Localisation Dashboard