Localization must transfer decision-making power, not just project responsibilities

Ghana's development partners need to relinquish control over decision-making in localized projects instead of merely shifting project responsibilities. Local NGOs are often invited to meetings after proposals have already been approved, and they are then expected to handle all aspects of the project, from recruiting participants to collecting data and reporting expenses.

This arrangement fails to grant Ghanaian organizations and communities the authority to identify needs, design interventions, allocate resources, manage risks, and assess outcomes, which is the core of meaningful localization. Current localization efforts merely transfer project responsibilities without shifting decision-making power to local actors.

International donors and NGOs should provide financing, technical assistance, and global advocacy, but should not maintain dominant control over local organizations. A 2024 USAID review found that direct funding to local partners in the humanitarian sector only reached 10.2% of their total budget in 2022, with capacity limitations, partner experience, and unreliable performance data as ongoing obstacles.

Despite these challenges, Ghanaian NGOs possess valuable local knowledge, credibility, and community connections that should be maximized. However, when localization merely shifts control from international organizations to national intermediaries, smaller district and regional organizations remain dependent. Ghanaian NGOs must challenge unequal donor relationships and examine how they reproduce inequalities in their interactions with local communities.

True localization requires mutual accountability, where donors disclose funding decisions and intermediary costs, while NGOs maintain governance integrity, financial management, and beneficiary protection. To transform localization from a slogan into institutional change, four reforms are proposed. First, local organizations and community representatives should share authority from the start, with final program approval requiring local input on problem definition, theory of change, indicator selection, and budgeting.

Voting power should be granted to local actors in project committees, rather than inviting them to validate already decided matters. Second, donors should offer more direct, multi-year, and flexible financing to cover governance costs, staff development, digital systems, monitoring, and audits. If an international organization remains an intermediary, the full funding chain should be publicly disclosed, including retained percentages at each level.

Third, evaluation should combine upward accountability to funders with downward accountability to citizens. Communities should participate in determining progress, receive transparent budget and target information, and engage in public reviews. Local partners should retain reasonable access to collected data for future planning.

Lastly, risk-sharing should be fair, with local NGOs assuming operational, reputational, and safeguarding risks alongside donors retaining strategic authority. Partnership agreements should include fair overhead rates, budget revision procedures, joint risk registers, dispute-resolution mechanisms, and clear exit plans. Donors must distinguish between organizational weaknesses requiring support and misconduct warranting sanctions.

Localization should also transcend national NGO headquarters. An Accra-based organization reproducing global inequities by controlling district partners and only consulting communities after funding decisions can lead to inequities. Decision-making should move from the Global North to Ghana and from national capitals to districts and citizens.

A national localisation compact, set by the Non-Profit Organization, is crucial for achieving these reforms and ensuring genuine localization benefits both donors and local actors.