The problem: Localisation is being handed to local organisations without the data layer that makes it work.
For most local and national NGOs, funding, reporting systems, and compliance support all arrived through the same international intermediary. As those intermediaries cut back or withdraw, local actors inherit the responsibility for delivery and accountability — but not the infrastructure that carried it. They are now expected to meet the same donor reporting and due-diligence standards as a well-resourced INGO, with none of the systems that INGO used to meet them. Without a deliberate transfer of data capability, localisation will be measured not by what was localised, but by what quietly stopped being reported.
For a decade, the humanitarian sector has agreed on where power should go. The 2016 Grand Bargain set a clear target: 25% of humanitarian funding should reach local and national organisations as directly as possible. Ten years on, the figure has never climbed out of low single digits — it sat at roughly 4.5% in 2023. Then, in 2025, the funding crisis did what a decade of summits could not: it forced the question of localisation to the top of the agenda — for the worst possible reason.
With international budgets collapsing and INGO field offices closing — 81 organisations had shut at least one office by April 2025 — local organisations are being asked to step into roles their international partners can no longer afford to play. But the funding is not the only thing that was flowing through those international intermediaries. So were the systems: the reporting templates, the data tools, the compliance know-how, the back-office that turned field activity into something a donor would accept. Those are disappearing at exactly the moment local actors are being asked to take over.
Download White Paper #2: When Localisation Lost Its Data Layer
This paper captures a reality that many local and national NGOs are currently experiencing. Localization cannot be reduced to the transfer of implementation responsibilities alone. True localization requires the transfer of the systems, knowledge, data infrastructure, compliance mechanisms, and institutional capacities that enable organizations to meet donor expectations and demonstrate impact. In many contexts, local actors have long been at the forefront of humanitarian response, yet critical data management, reporting, and compliance functions remained concentrated within international intermediaries. As funding cuts force INGOs to scale down or exit, local organizations are being expected to deliver at the same level of accountability without inheriting the tools and resources that made such accountability possible. The sector must recognize that data is not merely a reporting requirement—it is an essential component of organizational resilience, learning, transparency, and donor confidence. If localization is to succeed, investments must extend beyond programme delivery to include strengthening data systems, digital infrastructure, monitoring and evaluation capacities, and compliance support for local actors. This article raises an important warning: without intentional investment in the data layer of localization, we risk creating a situation where local organizations carry greater responsibility but have fewer means to demonstrate results, attract funding, and sustain quality programming. Sustainable localization requires both the transfer of power and the transfer of capability.