By Angela Umoru-David
ABUJA, Nigeria, Jan 23 2026 – For the last decade, many in the foreign aid sector have emphasised the need for localisation, and in the last 5 years, the calls have been louder than ever. I am one of such voices.

I believe that power should shift to local actors, who have a better understanding of local needs and culturally sensitive approaches to working in various communities. Late last year, while co-speaking on a panel about the future of the humanitarian sector, I heard a radical idea from international development professional Themrise Khan. She argued for the need to completely dismantle the humanitarian sector as it currently operates (note, the formal sector, and not humanitarianism itself).

This idea was reinforced when I read an opinion about how the ‘shifting of power’ we might see in the coming months/years, will be another form of neocolonialism as funds go directly to local entities… but with a caveat on what the funds should be used for, under the guise of the Global Goals or ‘allowable costs’.

This would restart a vicious cycle of political quid pro quo. Some people might argue that it is human nature for an entity to desire to influence how the funds they give are used. However, this negates the altruism that we all claim we subscribe to in the humanitarian world.

The idea of ‘shifting power’ only works if local professionals, in tandem with the communities they serve, also determine where the fund should go and what it should fund. Funding local actors directly while still dictating the purpose of the funds is simply a redesign of a system that has failed

My two cents? The idea of ‘shifting power’ only works if local professionals, in tandem with the communities they serve, also determine where the fund should go and what it should fund. Funding local actors directly while still dictating the purpose of the funds is simply a redesign of a system that has failed.

Communities should have the freedom to interpret the Global Goals within their local contexts, as some of their needs are not fully captured in the way the Global Goals are articulated. That is true power. Besides, many communities already have ancestral practices and traditional approaches to solving some of their needs. What they may lack is structure, access to the corridors of power, sufficient funding or contemporary systems for measuring success.

This brings me to another issue: redefining what success is.

The fact is that radical change is incremental. It is never the work of a sole organisation, and it definitely does not happen within a 12-month cycle.

When engaging with communities, we ought to recognise that even a shift in understanding is itself a significant change. While intangible, such changes are the bedrock of long-term impact. So, yes, we may have engaged 1000 people, but we cannot expect that harmful traditions that have endured for ages will suddenly end because of a few awareness sessions.

Our Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) metrics should focus on incremental change, such as increased understanding. This may be measured through shifts in language (how issues are described and understood) or in the adoption of new practices, even where harmful practices have not yet been fully phased out.

When success is viewed through such lenses, the pressure to provide a perfect scorecard eases; projects become more human-centred and make room for the complexity of human attitudes and decision-making. This is why we must invest in learning varied qualitative evaluation methods. Our current systems are skewed towards numbers alone, missing nuance and the real process of changemaking.

This shift also creates the proper canvas for storytelling as a tool for communicating impact. Stories show change over time in a way that remains with the audience.

This is not to say that numbers cannot achieve a similar result. Neither am I saying we should expunge numbers from MEL. Rather, stories capture our shared humanness.

They help people on opposite ends of the world see themselves in one another, and can be the reason someone chooses to click the donate button, gain a deeper understanding of an issue, or become an advocate for a cause far removed from their lived experience. While numbers show correlation, stories establish connection. This is why they are most powerful when used together.

In all of this- from project design to execution- humanitarian and development professionals need to adopt the role of facilitators.

For too long, we have spoken on behalf of communities, defining their needs and how they must be solved. While some of us have worked closely with these communities long enough to understand their realities, we must still create space for them to speak for themselves and self-advocate. The concept of localisation is not limited to foreign relations.

It also applies to us, the local actors. We must get as local as ‘local’ can get, and pass the microphone to the people who are most affected by the issues. Am I saying we cannot be advocates or design interventions based on past project performance? No. I am arguing that we become co-advocates.

Our data-gathering processes must be inclusive, and where we are working with evidence from past interventions, we must be humble enough to ask if the data is still valid: how much has changed? What should we do differently? How can we involve the community even more? Thus, in closing out a project, we must always leave a window open for continuous data collection.

Ultimately, true localisation means centring the voices, agency, and aspirations of communities themselves. This is a lesson to both local and international development and humanitarian practitioners.

As the world order shifts, there is an opportunity for the Global Majority to achieve lasting impact. We must commit and take actionable steps to ensure that communities are architects of their own development journeys. We have a great opportunity now. Let’s seize it!