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).