Localization must transfer decision-making power, not just project responsibilities

Opinion: Ghana's development partners should not call projects locally led while local NGOs carry delivery risks but lack authority over priorities, budgets, and evaluation.

A local NGO is invited to a project meeting after the proposal has already been approved. When the donor selects the problem, budget, indicators and deadline, the Ghanaian NGO is expected to recruit participants, organize community meetings, collect data and account for every cedi. When the project performs well, it is pronounced as locally led. Nevertheless, the local partner had little authority to decide what should be done, how resources should be used, or how success should be measured. That is not meaningful localization. It is the transfer of project responsibilities without a corresponding transfer of decision-making power. Genuine localization should place Ghanaian organisations and communities at the centre of identifying needs, designing interventions, allocating resources, managing risks, and assessing results. International donors and NGOs could still provide financing, technical support, and global advocacy, but they should not retain near-total control or treat local organisations merely as implementers. 

The gap between localization commitments and financing practice is well established. In the humanitarian sector, the Grand Bargain set a target of directing at least 25 percent of funding to local and national responders as directly as possible. A 2024 review by the USAID Office of Inspector General found that direct funding to local partners represented only 10.2% of USAID's total budget in the 2022 financial year. The review also identified employee capacity, partner experience, and unreliable performance data as continuing obstacles. These constraints are real, but they should lead to stronger partnership systems rather than stable control by huge mediators. Again, current Ghanaian evidence makes the issue more urgent. A 2026 study based on 36 interviews with local NGOs, international NGOs and other key informants establishes that Ghanaian NGOs contribute local knowledge, credibility and the ability to connect development programmes with communities. However, restrictive funding rules, difficult accountability requirements and weak recognition of local proficiency reduce that contribution. The study also cautions that localisation may simply shift control from international organisations to authoritative national intermediaries while smaller district and regional organisations remain dependent.

Using a Ghanaian logo, employing Ghanaian workers or subcontracting field activities does not routinely make a project locally led. Power remains external when the donor writes the theory of change, fixes the budget lines, owns the data, approves all adjustments, and defines impact without the affected community. WACSI has also argued that Ghanaian NGOs must challenge unequal donor relationships while examining how they reproduce the same inequalities in their dealings with local communities. The solution is not to abandon financial controls or offer money without scrutiny. Donors remain accountable to taxpayers and boards, while NGOs must show legitimate governance, sound financial management practices, and protection of beneficiaries. Localisation should therefore create mutual accountability. Donors should explain funding decisions, disclose the costs retained by intermediaries and accept independent appraisal. Local organisations should publish accounts, manage conflicts of interest, strengthen safeguarding and provide communities with accessible ways to question decisions.

Building on this, four reforms can turn localisation from a slogan into institutional change. First, local organisations and community representatives should share authority from the beginning. Major programmes should not receive final approval until local actors have helped define the problem, shape the theory of change, select indicators and agree on the budget. Project committees should give them voting power, not only invite them to validate decisions already taken. Second, donors should provide more direct, multi-year and flexible financing. Grants must cover the real costs of governance, staff development, digital systems, monitoring, rent, safeguarding and audits instead of paying for visible activities. Where an international organisation remains an intermediary, the full funding chain should be published, comprising the amount and percentage retained at each level.

Third, evaluation must combine upward accountability to funders with downward accountability to citizens. Communities should help determine what progress means, receive information about budgets and targets in understandable formats, and participate in public reviews. Local partners should retain reasonable access to the data they collect and be able to use the findings for future planning. WACSI's recent work with grassroots organisations in Ghana supports monitoring and learning systems adapted to community realities. Fourth, risk must be shared fairly. Local NGOs should not carry operational, reputational and safeguarding risks while donors reserve strategic authority. Partnership agreements should include fair overhead rates, clear procedures for budget revisions, joint risk registers, dispute-resolution mechanisms and real exit plans. Donors should distinguish between organisational weaknesses that require support and misconduct that requires sanctions.

Localisation must also move away from the headquarters of national NGOs. An organisation in Accra can reproduce the same inequities it criticizes globally by controlling district partners and consulting communities only after funding decisions have been made. Decision-making should therefore move not only from the Global North to Ghana, but similarly from national capitals to districts and from certified organisations to citizens. Ghana needs a national localisation compact set up by the Non-Profit Organisations Secretariat, civil society networks, development partners and representatives of community-based organisations. It should establish minimum standards for direct funding, common governance, transparent intermediary costs, community participation and mutual accountability. Thus, the test of localisation should no longer be whether a Ghanaian organisation delivered a donor-designed project. It should be whether Ghanaian institutions and communities had the authority, resources and information to lead their own development.

Author bio: Sadat Mohammed is a graduate student in nonprofit management with training in integrated business studies, human resource management and information studies. His research interests include public and nonprofit management, aid localisation, collaborative governance and accountable community development in Ghana. The views expressed are his own.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.

Tags:  

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.