Frequently asked questions

It is a 2016 deal between big humanitarian funders and aid agencies to change how humanitarian money is raised and spent so that more of it — and more decision-making — reaches the people and organisations closest to a crisis. Think of it as a shared set of promises to make aid less bureaucratic, more transparent, and more locally led.

It was launched at the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul in May 2016. It began with around 30 signatories and has since grown to 60+ — including major government donors, UN agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and large NGO networks.

No. It is a voluntary political commitment with no enforcement mechanism. Signatories report on their own progress. This is a strength (it is flexible and inclusive) and a weakness (promises can drift without accountability) — and it is precisely why independent tracking of who delivers is so important.

The commitment to channel at least 25% of humanitarian funding to local and national responders “as directly as possible.” It is the single most-cited figure in the whole debate. The phrase “as directly as possible” is deliberately flexible — it allows money to pass through one intermediary and still count, which critics say waters the target down.

No. Direct funding to local and national actors has consistently stayed in the low single digits — commonly cited around 1–2% — far short of 25%. Definitions and measurement are disputed, which is part of why the number stays both low and contested. Closing this gap is the core unfinished business of the Grand Bargain.

Several barriers stack up: humanitarian systems and grant processes built for large international NGOs; duplicated vetting and due-diligence demanded separately by each partner; heavy compliance and reporting burdens on under-resourced groups; donor risk-aversion; and the simple absence of a shared, trusted directory to even find local actors. The obstacles are structural, not a lack of local capability.

“Localisation” usually describes the process — shifting funding and roles toward local actors. “Locally led” goes further, stressing that local actors set the agenda and lead the response, not just receive funds. Many practitioners now prefer “locally led” to emphasise genuine transfer of power.

The framework has been renewed in phases. 2.0 (2021) narrowed the focus to two enabling priorities: quality (flexible) funding and localisation, using small negotiation groups called caucuses. The current phase — often called 3.0 — continues that focus toward 2026.

Evidence generally shows local actors deliver strong reach and impact, often with better access, trust and cost-effectiveness, and they remain after international responders leave. The “risk” cited by funders is frequently about compliance paperwork rather than actual performance — a framing the localisation agenda deliberately challenges.

Mainly through the annual Grand Bargain Independent Report and donor self-reporting. It is coordinated by a Facilitation Group and an Eminent Person, with a small secretariat, and sits under the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC).

Not with more pledges — with the tools the commitments always lacked. Localisation has stalled because the system was never built to support it: bureaucratic grant processes, duplicated vetting, and closed, scattered directories keep local organisations out, however strong the political will.

Achieving it means building shared infrastructure — one common directory of vetted local actors, visible provenance of trust, and open, accountable projects — so funders can find, trust, and fund local organisations directly, without the red tape. Change needs the right tools, not just the right aspirations.

That's exactly what we're building. See the solution →

It is the umbrella term used in funding data for organisations that are not international. It covers local and national NGOs and civil-society groups, community-based organisations (CBOs), national governments and public authorities, and national Red Cross / Red Crescent societies. In localisation debates the focus is usually on locally-led civil-society organisations — the groups rooted in and accountable to the communities they serve.

Quality funding is money that is flexible, less earmarked and multi-year, rather than tied to a single narrow project for a few months. It lets an organisation cover core costs, keep staff, and respond to real needs as they change. It is one of the two priorities of the Grand Bargain 2.0, precisely because short, tightly earmarked grants are one of the biggest obstacles for local organisations.

Direct funding goes straight from a donor to a local or national organisation. Indirect funding reaches them after passing through one or more intermediaries — a UN agency or an international NGO. The Grand Bargain’s “as directly as possible” wording lets money that passes through a single intermediary still count toward the 25% target, which is why the headline figure (~7–8%) is much higher than the share reaching local actors directly (well under 4%).

A Country-Based Pooled Fund is a fund managed by the UN (OCHA) that pools money from several donors at country level and allocates it to the response. CBPFs are one of the largest single channels of direct funding to national NGOs — a meaningful share of their allocations goes straight to local and national partners — which makes them one of the more localisation-friendly ways money currently moves.

The barriers are real, but preparation removes most of the friction. In practice it means being ready before you’re asked: legal registration, a one-page organisational profile, basic financial records and controls, a safeguarding policy, a documented track record, and a verifiable online presence. Keeping these in one pack — ready to send in a day, not a month — is what turns interest into a grant.

We built a guide and a readiness self-check for exactly this. See the guide for locally-led organisations →

Concrete steps matter more than statements: set and track a target for the share of funding reaching local actors; fund core and overhead costs, not just projects; offer multi-year, flexible funding; recognise and reuse other funders’ vetting instead of re-vetting from scratch; and credit local partners publicly by name. Each one removes a barrier the Grand Bargain identified.

You can measure where you stand with our funding self-check, and turn it into a commitment by signing the pledge.

Funding fell sharply. Total international humanitarian funding dropped to a decade low — around $33 billion in 2025, down roughly 20% in a single year — after deep donor cuts, with the United States and Germany accounting for most of the global decline. When budgets shrink, local organisations are usually cut first and hardest, widening the very gap the Grand Bargain set out to close.

See the funding data →