The Finance of Localisation: Is the 25% target a key performance truth?

The Grand Bargain resulted from the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit as a series of strategies to reform the international relief sector. Given a persistent humanitarian financing gap, one important goal is greater cost-effectiveness; allowing local and national responders a greater role in the collective effort one of the objectives to contribute to this. Channelling, by 2020, as directly as possible, 25% of all humanitarian aid to local/national responders has become the central strategy to reinforce their leadership and role.

This GMI Brief examines whether achieving that 25% target is indeed an effective strategy to reinforce local/national responders and to reduce the humanitarian financing gap? Considering the disregard for the financial stability of local/national responders, the likelihood that budgets and financial reports underestimate the true cost of a response operation, and that relief financing is overwhelmingly handled as a recurrent expenditure, the answer is very probably no. The 25% is an input target. What we need is a substantive outcome vision: What will success look like if localisation is achieved? Read more here