Opinion: Breaking through localization myths

This opinion article has been co-authored by Sean Callahan, president and CEO of Catholic Relief Services; Lucy Espila, regional executive secretary of Caritas Africa; Patrick Sambaga, country director of Transcultural Psychosocial Organization Uganda; and Dr. Mohamed Lamine Yansané, former secretary general of the Ministry of Health and Public Hygiene in Guinea.

In recent years, the push for localization has gained momentum across the development and humanitarian sectors. Around the world, civil society, advocacy groups, and government leaders are calling for a shift toward increased funding allocation, decision-making, and ownership by local communities and their institutions. Initiatives such as the “Grand Bargain” and U.S. Agency for International Development’s new vision for locally led development signal donor responsiveness. The consensus is clear: localization is key to reshaping and modernizing aid. But change is hard and requires transformation within our own organizations and across the aid system. We have seen resistance to change growing, fueled by persistent myths about what is possible. But we’ve also seen firsthand that advancing locally led solutions can make aid more effective, sustainable, and equitable. Through our partnerships, we have seen that transformation is possible if we confront tired tropes about local capacity and steer clear of fear-based assumptions.

❌ Myth: Lots of funding already goes to local organizations.
✔️ Reality: Remarkably little funding currently reaches local organizations.

Reality check from Lucy Espila, regional executive secretary for Caritas Africa:

With so much talk about localization, it might seem that donors have already shifted large amounts of funding to local organizations. The truth is less than 1% of U.S. humanitarian assistance and less than 10% of all USAID assistance goes to local organizations. This reality is further skewed by inconsistent and loose definitions of what is considered local. Spinoffs and affiliates of international organizations inflate the already small amount of funding going to truly locally based institutions. This weakens aid transparency and undermines accountability. As a representative of a network of national Caritas organizations from 46 African countries, I believe we need to clearly define our localization goals and fund strong, vibrant local institutions at the national and subnational levels. We need to accelerate the shift in funding to truly locally led institutions and provide sufficient, multiyear support that allows local organizations to establish the systems and structures they need to serve their communities and advocate for change. Only then will we ensure that local organizations are the true architects of effective, sustainable humanitarian and development solutions.

❌ Myth: Local organizations are not capable enough or “ready” to lead effectively.
✔️ Reality: Capable organizations and professional leaders exist everywhere.

Reality check from Patrick Sambaga, country director for Transcultural Psychosocial Organization Uganda:

This is simply unjust and untrue. With the support of Catholic Relief Services, or CRS, Transcultural Psychosocial Organization Uganda pursued and won our first direct USAID award in 2020. This has allowed us to continue delivering essential care and support to orphans and vulnerable children across Uganda while improving our cost-effectiveness and sustainability and refining our locally relevant services for the most vulnerable. The global aid system must recognize that, like us, local institutions are ready to take on larger roles, even if until now the roles accessible to them have been as subrecipients or task-specific subcontractors. The readiness gap in local institutions is often more about the robustness of current organizational systems than inherent capacity. Context matters and assumptions about civil society capacity in aid-recipient nations should be considered with as much nuance as anywhere else. As donors increase direct funding to local institutions, they must align the size of awards, choice of instrument, and funding timelines with local needs to ensure success.

❌ Myth: Capacity strengthening doesn’t work.
✔️ Reality: Investment in holistic, participatory capacity strengthening delivers results.

Reality check from Dr. Mohamed Lamine Yansane, former secretary general of the Ministry of Health and Public Hygiene in Guinea:

While capacity strengthening is not a new concept, it has often lacked local input and standard success measurements, and relied on top-down, transactional approaches. Implementers and donors are rethinking their approach. During my tenure as the secretary general of the Ministry of Health and Public Hygiene in Guinea, I saw the impact of locally led capacity strengthening firsthand. Through the High Performing Implementers Initiative, our National Malaria Control Program, or NMCP, has been working with CRS to strengthen its capacities to meet the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria standards. We recently evaluated all 13 ministry of health programs and NMCP came out as the top performer. This is a direct result of the capacity-strengthening support that NMCP received from CRS over the past several years. Locally led development requires this kind of intentional, high-quality investment, guided by the vision and priorities of the local institution.

❌ Myth: Localization shuts out global development partners.
✔️ Reality: There are many important stakeholders in global aid and international organizations, intermediaries, and networks remain critical in development and humanitarian solutions.

Reality check from Sean Callahan, president and CEO of Catholic Relief Services USA:

Governments, civil society, faith-based and community groups worldwide are tackling enormous challenges, but nobody can solve these intractable problems alone. At CRS we are changing internally — from staffing to financial reporting to how we mobilize resources. We are changing how we partner, including by committing to indirect cost recovery for our partners, dramatically increasing the funding that goes directly to them, and prioritizing locally led initiatives. We assist local organizations to become prime recipients, and when they ask, we are honored to serve as their subrecipients. In fact, CRS was the first U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief INGO to transition leadership of its HIV program to national civil society and government partners, over 13 years ago. Since then, dozens of in-country CRS subrecipients are now the prime recipients of agreements formerly managed by CRS. We believe that localization primarily calls for a change in the roles development stakeholders will play, not their elimination from the global aid system.

A joint call to action

Direct funding channels, authority over development choices, and equitable partnerships — these are the building blocks of empowerment. To truly advance locally led development, we need to transform every aspect of the traditional aid system, including funding mechanisms, program strategies, and power dynamics. We need to shift the power and commit to change. As national and international partners, we call for donors and policymakers to trust in the wisdom of communities and their institutions, enabling them to shape their destinies. A more inclusive and responsive approach to aid will help us all usher in a new era of humanitarian and development endeavors.

Dig into Roots for Change, a series examining the push towards locally led development.

This piece is sponsored by Catholic Relief Services as part of our Roots for Change series. Click here to learn more.