Should UK international NGOs shift power and money to locally-led organisations?

The debate in brief

International development has been shaped by a model in which money flows from Northern governments and donors, through Northern-headquartered NGOs, to Southern communities. This model concentrates decision-making power, strategic direction, and financial control in London, Geneva, and Washington — not in the places where the work happens. Critics argue this perpetuates colonial dynamics: Northern organisations define problems, design solutions, set reporting requirements, and retain the majority of funding as overhead and intermediary costs. The counterargument is that large international NGOs provide accountability infrastructure, technical expertise, and donor confidence that locally-led organisations cannot yet replicate at scale. The debate is not new, but it has sharpened significantly since 2020, driven by the Black Lives Matter movement, Peace Direct's landmark report, and growing evidence that locally-led responses are faster, cheaper, and more effective.

Quick takeaways

The arguments

The case for dismantling Northern intermediary models

The strongest argument for radical restructuring is that the current system is not just inequitable but inefficient. When funding passes through multiple Northern intermediaries before reaching local organisations, each layer absorbs overhead. The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) has documented that indirect funding routes can cost 20-30% more than direct funding to local actors. Local and national organisations are typically first responders in crises — they are already present, already trusted, and already operational when international agencies are still mobilising.

Peace Direct's "Time to Decolonise Aid" report (2021) laid out the structural critique in detail. Based on surveys and interviews across 49 countries, it found that Northern NGOs routinely imposed their own strategic priorities on Southern partners, required reporting in formats designed for Northern donors rather than local learning, and treated local organisations as implementing subcontractors rather than equal partners. The report documented cases where Northern organisations took credit for work designed and delivered by local staff, and where compliance requirements consumed up to 40% of local partners' administrative capacity.

The Shift the Power movement, championed by the Global Fund for Community Foundations and taken up by networks including Bond and the Start Network, argues that these are not flaws to be fixed within the current model but features of a system designed to maintain Northern control. Their position is that UK-based international NGOs should progressively transfer assets, decision-making authority, and brand control to Southern-led entities — and that organisations unwilling to do so should be honest about the fact that their primary function is institutional self-preservation.

The case for reforming rather than replacing Northern NGOs

The reform position accepts the power critique but argues that dismantling Northern institutions would leave critical gaps. Large international NGOs provide fiduciary infrastructure that institutional donors — including FCDO, the European Commission, and UN agencies — require. Donor compliance, financial reporting, and audit standards are set by Northern governments, and meeting those standards requires institutional capacity that many local organisations do not yet have. This is not a reflection of local incompetence; it is a function of decades of underinvestment in local institutional development.

CAFOD, Bond, and others in the UK sector have argued that the answer is not abolition but transformation: restructuring governance so that Southern boards and leadership hold genuine authority, investing in local partners' organisational capacity rather than perpetually subcontracting, and advocating with institutional donors to simplify compliance so that direct funding becomes viable. Bond's 2022 framework on decolonising partnerships set out principles including shared agenda-setting, equitable funding flows, and mutual accountability — but acknowledged that implementation across its membership was uneven.

There is also a pragmatic concern about scale. In protracted crises — Syria, Yemen, the Sahel — coordination across borders, sustained donor engagement, and political advocacy at the UN Security Council level require organisations with international reach. Locally-led organisations may be better positioned for community-level delivery, but the architecture for large-scale humanitarian response still depends on organisations that operate across multiple countries.

The uncomfortable middle

Most UK international NGOs currently occupy a position that satisfies neither side. They have adopted the language of localisation and decolonisation without undertaking the structural reforms those terms imply. Oxfam GB published an internal decolonisation review and committed to shifting power to country offices, but its governance structure, headquartered in Oxford and Nairobi, still concentrates strategic authority among senior leadership. Christian Aid moved further, closing some country offices and channelling more funding through local partner organisations, but its income and brand remain UK-centred. The Start Network, which channels emergency funds through locally-led decision-making hubs, is one of the few structural innovations — but it remains dependent on Northern donor funding.

The gap between rhetoric and practice is measurable. Despite widespread adoption of localisation language, the proportion of direct funding to local organisations has barely moved since the Grand Bargain was signed in 2016. Northern organisations continue to absorb the majority of humanitarian funding as prime recipients, passing fragments downstream.

The evidence

Development Initiatives' annual tracking of Grand Bargain commitments provides the clearest quantitative picture. In 2022, only around 2.3% of international humanitarian assistance went directly to local and national organisations — nowhere near the 25% target. By 2023 this had risen to approximately 4.5%, partly reflecting improved tracking of funding flows. When funding passed through one intermediary, the proportion was higher, but the vast majority of resources remained controlled and allocated by international actors.

Peace Direct's "Time to Decolonise Aid" (2021), based on 158 respondents from local organisations, civil society, and donor agencies across 49 countries, documented systemic patterns: 90% of respondents agreed the aid system was influenced by a white saviour mentality, and 80% said Northern NGOs imposed their own priorities rather than responding to locally defined needs.

The ODI's research on localisation in humanitarian response (2019) found that local actors are consistently faster to respond, have stronger community trust, and deliver at lower cost. ODI and other researchers have consistently argued that shifting to local first responders generates significant cost savings in humanitarian response, though precise global estimates vary considerably by context and methodology.

Bond's 2023 survey of its membership found that 74% of UK international development organisations had taken some steps toward decolonising their practices, but only 18% had made structural governance changes such as appointing Southern-majority boards or transferring decision-making authority to country offices.

Christian Aid's partnership review (2022) showed that its model of channelling 85% of programme funding through local partners delivered stronger community outcomes and lower overhead ratios compared with direct implementation — supporting the efficiency case for localisation.

Current context

The UK's reduction of the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI in 2021, sustained through successive budgets, removed approximately GBP 4.6 billion annually from the aid envelope. This has forced painful choices across the sector, with several UK-based international NGOs cutting staff, closing programmes, and reducing country office presence. The cuts have made the efficiency argument for localisation more compelling — if there is less money available, it matters more that what remains reaches frontline delivery rather than sustaining intermediary infrastructure.

FCDO's own strategy has shifted toward bilateral and multilateral channels, with a reduced emphasis on funding through UK NGOs. The Start Network's decentralised model — allocating crisis response funding through regional hubs with local decision-making authority — has gained traction as an operational proof of concept.

Globally, the Grand Bargain 3.0 framework (2023) renewed localisation commitments and introduced a stronger emphasis on quality funding, but enforcement mechanisms remain weak.

Last updated: April 2026

What this means for charities

For UK-based international NGOs, the debate demands honest self-assessment. Organisations that describe themselves as "locally-led" while retaining London-based governance, UK-centred fundraising, and Northern compliance frameworks are increasingly exposed to challenge from partners and peers. The organisations that have moved furthest — Christian Aid's partnership model, the Start Network's devolved hubs — offer templates, but replication requires governance reform that many boards are reluctant to undertake.

For domestic UK charities and funders with international programmes, the localisation debate has direct parallels with the power dynamics debate in UK grantmaking. The same questions apply: who sets the agenda, who controls the money, and who is accountable to whom. Funders considering international grants should scrutinise whether their funding reaches local organisations directly or passes through Northern intermediaries, and whether their compliance requirements are proportionate or exclusionary.

For charity leaders engaging with these issues publicly, the credibility test is straightforward: what has your organisation actually changed, structurally, in the past five years? Statements of intent without governance reform, budget reallocation, or leadership diversification are no longer sufficient.

Common questions

What does "decolonising development" actually mean?

Decolonising development means dismantling the power structures inherited from colonialism that continue to shape how international aid and development work operates. This includes the concentration of funding, decision-making, and strategic authority in Northern institutions; the assumption that Northern expertise is superior to local knowledge; and the compliance and reporting frameworks that treat Southern organisations as subordinate implementing partners. It is not simply about diversifying staff or adopting more inclusive language — it requires structural changes to governance, funding flows, and organisational models.

Is the white saviour critique fair?

The critique targets systemic structures rather than individual motivations. Peace Direct's research found that 90% of respondents across 49 countries agreed the aid system was influenced by a white saviour mentality. This does not mean every development worker is personally guilty of paternalism, but that the system within which they operate concentrates knowledge, authority, and resources in Northern — predominantly white-led — institutions, while treating Southern communities as recipients rather than agents. The structural dimension is what makes the critique difficult to dismiss through individual good intentions.

Why has the Grand Bargain localisation target not been met?

The 25% direct funding target, agreed at the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016, has not been met because the incentive structures of the humanitarian system work against it. Institutional donors require compliance standards that favour large Northern organisations. Northern NGOs have financial incentives to remain prime recipients. Risk management frameworks treat local organisations as higher risk, requiring more oversight rather than less. And there is no enforcement mechanism — the Grand Bargain is a voluntary commitment with no penalties for non-compliance.

Can locally-led organisations handle large-scale humanitarian response?

The evidence suggests they can, with appropriate investment. Local organisations already deliver the majority of frontline humanitarian response — they are first on the ground in almost every crisis. What they often lack is not capacity but capital and institutional infrastructure, both of which have been systematically directed to Northern organisations. The Start Network's experience shows that devolved decision-making can operate at scale when local hubs are properly resourced. The question is less about whether local organisations can do the work and more about whether the system will let them.

Should UK international NGOs shut down?

This is the sharpest formulation of the debate, and few advocate for blanket closure. The more productive question is whether specific functions currently performed by UK-based organisations — fundraising, advocacy, coordination, fiduciary management — could be performed by Southern-led institutions if resources were transferred. In some cases, yes. In others, particularly around political advocacy with UK government and multilateral institutions, a UK-based presence may remain necessary. The test should be whether a UK-based organisation is adding value that could not be provided by a locally-led alternative, not whether it is adding value in the abstract.

How does the UK aid cut affect this debate?

The reduction from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI removed approximately GBP 4.6 billion annually from UK aid. With less money in the system, every pound absorbed by Northern intermediary costs represents a greater proportional loss to frontline delivery. The cuts have strengthened the efficiency case for localisation — direct funding to local organisations avoids the overhead of multiple intermediary layers — but have also created institutional survival pressures that make Northern NGOs less willing to cede funding streams.

Key sources and further reading

• "Time to Decolonise Aid" -- Peace Direct, 2021. Survey of 158 respondents across 49 countries documenting how Northern NGOs impose priorities, extract local expertise, and perpetuate structural inequalities in the aid system.

• Grand Bargain Localisation Workstream: Annual Reports -- Development Initiatives, ongoing. The primary quantitative tracking of humanitarian funding flows to local and national organisations, showing the share of direct funding to local organisations (around 2.3% in 2022, rising to approximately 4.5% in 2023) against the 25% target.

• "Decolonising UK International Development" -- Bond, 2022. Framework for UK international development organisations to assess and reform partnership practices, governance, and funding flows.

• "The Humanitarian Economy" -- ODI (Victoria Metcalfe-Hough et al.), 2019. Research on the cost-effectiveness and responsiveness of local humanitarian actors compared with international agencies.

• "Shifting the Power: The State of Localisation in the Humanitarian Sector" -- Start Network, ongoing. Documentation of the Start Network's devolved decision-making model and regional hub structure.

• Christian Aid Partnership Model Review -- Christian Aid, 2022. Internal assessment showing that channelling 85% of programme funding through local partners delivered stronger outcomes and lower overhead ratios.

• "Racism, Power and Truth: Experiences of People of Colour in Development" -- Peace Direct and Adeso, 2021. Companion report to "Time to Decolonise Aid" focusing specifically on the experiences of people of colour working within the international development system.

• Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2023 -- Development Initiatives, 2023. Comprehensive annual report on international humanitarian funding volumes, channels, and distribution, including localisation tracking data.