Localisation in name only: the true cost of the far-right agenda

This month, development and humanitarian NGOs faced a significant challenge when the Dutch government announced substantial funding cuts of 70%. These cuts are not an isolated incident: earlier this year, Germany announced further cuts in official development aid (ODA), with Belgium and France seeming to follow suit with announced cuts ranging from 15 to 40%. These cuts mean that billions of euros are withheld from communities in the Global South who are facing humanitarian crises, climate breakdown and inequality. 

A silver lining?
However, there could be a seemingly positive side to this story. Many right-wing governments appear to be promoting the localisation agenda, which is defined as a shift in power, decision-making and resources to those from and working within the communities in the Global South. For instance, the far-right Dutch minister for Development Aid highlighted in a letter to Parliament that “local ownership is the premise of all work”. 

Local actors in the humanitarian and development sectors, alongside international organisations like Oxfam, have championed the localisation agenda for years. They advocate that people and communities in the Global South must have the power, agency and funding to drive the change needed. However, despite countless commitments, summits and targets set by major ODA donors in the Global North, a true localisation agenda is not commonplace yet. Less than 10% of humanitarian funding goes directly to local organisations - against a target of 25% - and over 90% of all civil society support in Development Assistance Committee (DAC) countries flows to organisations based in the Global North. So, a commitment to more localisation is needed, right?

Missing the point
Yes. But yes, with an asterisk. The right-wing push for localisation does not appear to stem from a genuine interest in fostering local civil society. Rather, it is always accompanied by significant funding cuts to humanitarian and development work. These cuts reduce the overall pool of funding available to both Global North and Global South organisations, rather than facilitating the necessary shift from big Northern organisations to local organisations. Also, when some governments see localisation as a way to cut costs, they are missing the point of its true purpose, or even try to distort its meaning. Localisation is more efficient, impactful and appropriate, but it does not justify slashing funding.

In addition, right-wing proponents for localisation push for funding to go to organisations aligned with their ideological agendas – such as faith-based organisations. This narrow approach risks leaving some communities underrepresented, such as women’s rights organisations fighting for reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ groups, human rights defenders and marginalised ethnic or racial minorities. This reduces the diversity of voices, narrows the scope of development cooperation and leaves dire humanitarian needs of marginalised groups unmet. 

The reimagined role of INGOs
These funding cuts will also place a strain on local organisations which may currently lack the infrastructure to meet donor’s strenuous reporting and accounting obligations. Organisations in the Global North have spent decades building these structures. Local organisations need time to build their capacity for fundraising and advocacy with global publics, and to acquire the technical accounting skills required by donors. This is not an overnight job. Without proper funding and logistical support, let alone a realistic timeframe, many local and Global South organisations will struggle to fill the gap left by Global North organisations.

Meanwhile, intermediaries, like Oxfam, which remain important for now, must work harder to re-imagine and redefine their role and value in a world where grassroot and local organisations lead. Direct funding to local organisations is key, complimented by principles like joint responsibility, co-creation, flexibility, complementarity and equity. We must create solidarity and genuine partnerships between civil society worldwide to address humanitarian crises, disaster response, climate breakdown and growing inequalities, rather than indiscriminately sidelining half the sector. This new model of collaboration between intermediaries and local organisations has already proven viable in many contexts. For instance, Oxfam in its Ukraine response, transferred nearly half of all funding received directly to local organisations, adopting an approach that shares risks rather than burdening partners with all risks. When partners were less familiar with humanitarian work, technical support was provided. Other successful examples of such partnerships and locally-led consortia are the Nexus Platform in Somalia and the ASAL Humanitarian Network in Kenya. 

Really understanding localisation
What all these examples have in common is a shift towards locally-led humanitarian and development responses, which in essence is a shift in power. Local communities, organisations and authorities must be in the driving seat, deciding what gets done, when, and by whom. They must be part of the decision on where and how aid is spent. They should have the freedom to decide what works best in their context, as they know best. However, if donors keep dictating the terms, a new form of ‘colonised localisation’ will emerge that completely undermines the very principles of localisation. 

Shutting out critical voices and closing civic space
If governments in the Global North are serious about localisation, they must include Global South organisations in discussions on aid allocation. This needs funding too, as engaging with civil servants in embassies, capitals and Brussels, demands time and capacity. Yet, what we see is not very positive. The Dutch minister for Development Aid has explicitly ruled out funding for advocacy and lobbying both towards the Dutch government and at regional and global levels, effectively cutting off all civil society from having a seat at the decision-making table. This shift fits well in an agenda of distrust in the global multilateral system, and the organisations working in that system.

Ruling out funding for advocacy also seriously impacts local organisations. In countries with restricted civic space, advocacy at above-country level is often their only option as in-country they face risks ranging from discreditation to being shut down. This is also where international organisations can still play a vital role, by defending civic space at the international level, raising awareness and ‘taking the hit’ on behalf of local organisations. Second, when decisions about the “how” and “what” of ODA are made in the capitals of the Global North without any input from local organisations, the entire pivot to localisation becomes a sham. 

And so… 
Localisation is needed and is fully aligned with decolonisation goals. This shift means transforming the aid system. However, what we are seeing is governments seeking to simplify and weaponise the localisation agenda to justify aid cuts and advance a regressive political agenda. This undermines the core purpose of empowering local organisations to lead, as well as their stability and effectiveness operating in the global humanitarian and development system. We need localisation policies that prioritise equity and sustainability, not austerity. If we continue with these misguided policies, the consequences will be felt by local and international organisations, and, worse, by the communities they serve.