In a recent opinion piece, Ghanaian NGOs and local civil society groups called on international development partners to move beyond token localisation and grant genuine decision‑making authority to local actors. The authors argue that many projects are branded as locally led simply because a Ghanaian organisation is hired to recruit participants, organise meetings and manage day‑to‑day finances, while the donor still sets the problem, budget, indicators and deadline.
Such arrangements, the piece notes, mean that local partners are left with little say over how resources are used, how success is measured or how priorities are set. The authors contend that this is not meaningful localisation but a transfer of responsibilities without a corresponding transfer of power. They urge donors to place Ghanaian organisations and communities at the centre of identifying needs, designing interventions, allocating resources, managing risks and assessing results.
The article cites a 2024 USAID Office of Inspector General review that found only 10.2 % of USAID’s 2022 budget went directly to local partners, far below the Grand Bargain target of 25 %. It also references a 2026 study of 36 interviews that highlighted how restrictive funding rules, complex accountability requirements and weak recognition of local expertise limit the contribution of Ghanaian NGOs. The study warned that localisation could simply shift control from international NGOs to national intermediaries while smaller district organisations remain dependent.
According to WACSI, merely using a Ghanaian logo or hiring local staff does not make a project locally led if the donor writes the theory of change, owns the data and approves all adjustments. The authors argue that localisation should create mutual accountability: donors must explain funding decisions, disclose intermediary costs and accept independent appraisal, while local NGOs must publish accounts, manage conflicts of interest and provide communities with accessible ways to question decisions.
The piece proposes four reforms to turn localisation from a slogan into institutional change. First, local organisations and community representatives should share authority from the outset, with project committees granting them voting power rather than merely inviting them to validate pre‑made decisions. Second, donors should offer more direct, multi‑year and flexible financing that covers governance, staff development and monitoring costs, and publish the full funding chain. Third, evaluation must combine upward accountability to funders with downward accountability to citizens, ensuring communities help define progress and access data for future planning. Fourth, risk must be shared fairly, with partnership agreements including overhead rates, joint risk registers, dispute‑resolution mechanisms and real exit plans.
The authors also call for localisation to move away from the headquarters of national NGOs. An Accra‑based organisation can reproduce the same inequities it criticises globally by controlling district partners and consulting communities only after funding decisions are made. Decision‑making should therefore shift not only from the Global North to Ghana, but also from national capitals to districts and from certified organisations to citizens.
What follows is a growing debate within Ghana’s civil society and donor community about how to operationalise localisation in a way that truly empowers local actors. Stakeholders are urged to review current partnership agreements, rethink funding models and engage communities in genuine co‑creation of development programmes.
