Increasing funding to local and national actors (LNAs) is one of the core humanitarian reform areas of the last decade. The Grand Bargain set out a collective commitment of 25% of humanitarian funding going to LNAs.
Through combining data from different UN agencies and the Red Cross, this report enables us to hold a mirror to the sector based on the principles of accountability and knowledge-sharing. The report shows we are continuing to fall short as a sector, both in terms of quantity and quality of funding to LNAs, as well as transparency on who funds what.
Key messages
On what the data tells us
- Globally, just below 10% of international humanitarian funding reached LNAs, directly and indirectly, in 2024 – far below the Grand Bargain target of 25%. Direct funding remained low at 3.8%.
- International actors seemed to de-prioritise funding LNAs in 2024, as the amount of funding reaching LNAs shrank by more that year than the overall international humanitarian funding pot.
- UN agencies, partly owing to their size, were the largest providers of funding to LNAs between 2022 and 2024.
- Direct funding to LNAs by government donors that are also Grand Bargain signatories was only $0.5 billion from 2022 to 2024 – a figure that would not be enough to place them as a combined category in the top five donors of funding to LNAs.
- LNAs consistently receive lower quality funding than their international counterparts, with shorter, smaller grants and greater earmarking.
- Country-based pooled funds have historically achieved high percentages of funding to LNAs (55% direct and indirect in 2025). However, with limited absorption capacity and a relatively shallow partner base, these mechanisms may prove unable to both absorb large amounts of funding and pass it onto LNAs. We recommend therefore that every OCHA publish time-bound roadmaps on achieving localisation targets for CBPFs.
On the availability of data
- Previously, around 25% of the total 2024 humanitarian funding figure was traceable. With our newly included data sources, that has risen to around 60%, which still falls far short of what is required to ensure meaningful accountability on localisation targets.
- Varied reporting practices hinder accountability efforts, with UN agencies publishing data but in a disparate and non-interoperable manner, whilst INGOs are largely not reporting. For meaningful accountability, governments should mandate UN agencies to publish their data in an accessible manner, and INGOs should comprehensively publish timely and accessible data on the quantity and quality of funding they provide to LNAs.
- Data on the ‘quality of funding’ remains scarce and patchy. To address this, donors and intermediaries should agree with LNAs on a set of quality funding criteria and report on those publicly.