Aid donors failing to deliver on localization promises, study finds

Governments and agencies are breaking pledges to shift power and funding to local aid organizations and many are failing to even record data, according to a highly critical analysis released today. Funding problems, administrative red tape, and a “lack of recognition and support” are all undermining commitments to allow on-the-ground groups to shape and run projects, the study commissioned by the Caritas Europa confederation says. Its research reveals a striking lack of transparency, with only three of the top 10 donor governments — and three of the leading five INGOs — able to provide data to show how much money is passed to local players. Evidence gathered in Lebanon and Colombia found groups often feel “excluded from decision-making processes” and sometimes have to “adjust their identity to appease donors,” the report states. “There is a gap between policy and practice, with many organizations having policies and commitments on localisation but weak implementation and accountability mechanisms,” it concludes, ahead of a launch at the European Parliament in Brussels on Tuesday. Through the Grand Bargain, created in 2016 and renewed in 2021, government donors, U.N. agencies, and international NGOs pledged to allocate 25% of funding “as directly as possible” to local humanitarian organizations — a commitment repeatedly broken. They also promised to integrate local players into the development of projects “from the earliest stages of response design,” guaranteeing their participation in meetings with donors. The study, carried out for Caritas by The Centre for Humanitarian Action, looks beyond devolution of funding to rank governments and agencies by including other criteria such as commitment to localization, the extent of partnership and capacity building with local groups, accountability, and coordination, with most weight given to “local actors’ perception.” Germany is ranked top of public donors, with a score of 60 out of 100, ahead of the European Commission, with 57; Canada, with 56; the United States, with 53; and the United Kingdom, with 50. Only three of the 10 largest government donors revealed how much of their funding is funneled to local organizations — but the report does not reveal which because they were granted anonymity in their responses, as were the agencies. The Netherlands, Japan, and France were not awarded a score because they failed to provide responses, citing “time constraints” in most cases. Of United Nations agencies and INGOs, the UN Refugee Agency, or UNHCR, is given the highest score of 66 out of 100, ahead of the World Food Programme, with 64; UNICEF, with 63; the International Rescue Committee, with 52; and World Vision International, with 51. The U.N. Palestinian refugee agency, or UNRWA, with 33, is ranked bottom. In Lebanon, local organizations reported that “their expertise is not fully recognised” and that international aid giants “often impose their own priorities and agendas rather than responding to the needs of the affected communities.” Some raised the trap that, to pass due diligence tests to receive funds “you need to have many departments in your organizations,” yet “to have those departments you need funds.” Responses were more favorable in Colombia, with some groups “able to build strong partnerships with international players and “to influence decision-making processes” in an equitable and transparent dynamic.” But a Catholic organization said it had to “adjust” its identity, despite having “doors open for whoever needs it,” reporting: “We have to avoid talking about belonging to the Catholic Church. So, we’ve had to be careful with that, because yes, if it is a requirement, we have to respect it.” And there were other “significant challenges”: One interview noted a project might be worth $5,000 but a visit by someone to assess a group’s suitability “comes at a cost of 1,000 dollars.”