Kanwal Singh and Aubrey Moono
Talking about change
International development and humanitarian donors and organisations are crucial in supporting countries facing social and economic challenges, natural disasters, war and conflict, or epidemics. However, the negative impact of their traditional, top-down approaches on effectiveness, inclusion, and sustainability is increasingly recognised.
During the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul in 2016, prominent donors and humanitarian organisations launched the ‘Grand Bargain’ agreement. This sought to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian action by pledging to direct more resources and responsibility to local entities.
Discussions followed the summit, but the impact was largely confined to theoretical debate and events. The localisation of aid processes has not sustained momentum. Many donors’ systems, strategies, practices, and actions remain unchanged.
Crisis-driven change
The concept of localisation became increasingly significant during the COVID-19 crisis, driven by necessity rather than choice. When countries implemented lockdowns and travel restrictions, operational approaches had to be re-evaluated. Humanitarian organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and technical experts had to adapt in response to affected populations’ evolving needs. Such adaptations included:
- shifting to remote operational management and virtual training, using digital technology for communication and coordination;
- implementing innovative technological and creative solutions to deliver services that minimised the risk of infection;
- adapting programmes to include COVID-19 response measures;
- adjusting project budgets and deadlines to meet changing and unpredictable circumstances.
Implications for knowledge, power, and ownership
The pandemic highlighted the limitations of existing top-down approaches where international organisations dictate the terms and strategies of assistance. Overnight, the significance of handing ownership of development processes to local communities had to be acknowledged, even by organisations that had previously been reluctant to do so. Central to this paradigm shift is the relationship between knowledge, power, and ownership as pivotal components shaping the effectiveness and sustainability of development and humanitarian initiatives.
Knowledge is the bedrock for effective development and humanitarian strategies. Historically, in this sector it was monopolised by external actors, such as international NGOs, funding agencies, and academic institutions. While they have contributed expertise and resources, there is growing recognition that the insights, experiences, and solutions generated within and by communities are equally, if not more, valuable. Local knowledge is rooted in context, shaped by lived experiences, and informed by cultural norms and practices that outsiders may not fully grasp. While local knowledge is not always researched or published in the same way the international actors present theirs, it is no less valid or valuable. It holds the key to developing contextually appropriate solutions that are more likely to succeed in addressing complex challenges.
However, the unequal distribution of power within the development and humanitarian sector hinders the full realisation of local knowledge’s potential. Power dynamics, within and between organisations, often dictate whose voices are heard and published, and whose perspectives are prioritised in decision-making processes. Power imbalances can marginalise local actors, dismiss their knowledge, and prevent them from being active participants in the development process. This is especially so when local actors feel they cannot question inappropriate NGO or donor policies and practices for fear of losing their funding.
When local knowledge and indigenous approaches are overlooked in favour of external influences, development and humanitarian interventions become disconnected from reality and fall short of meeting the community’s needs, leading to unintended negative consequences. Central to addressing these power imbalances is the principle of ownership.
Communities should have primary agency and control over their own development trajectories. Ownership goes beyond tokenistic and pseudo-participation. It entails genuine empowerment, whereby communities are enabled to shape agendas, define goals and lead the implementation of development initiatives. When communities take ownership of their development, they are more invested in its success, more resilient to challenges, and better able to sustain long-term progress.
Localisation is fundamentally about rebalancing the distribution of power and fostering greater equity and inclusivity in the development framework. It requires a fundamental shift in mindset, from viewing local communities as passive beneficiaries to recognising them as active agents of change.
All change is tough and achieving localisation in development and humanitarian work is no exception. It comes with its own set of challenges and hurdles. The practical, social, political, and logistical challenges include:
- capacity gaps in local organisations for project management, financial management, evaluation, and documentation – especially when funders only fund project costs rather than core organisational development costs;
- cultural and language barriers between donors and local organisations;
- frameworks for coordination between multiple stakeholders or partners;
- rethinking power dynamics involves a shift in existing hierarchies and decision-making authority;
- local actors might not get along with each other or negotiate local hierarchies of power. For example, women and people from certain castes or economic backgrounds can be limited by cultural norms.
How can development and humanitarian interventions be localised?
Facilitating localisation requires effort and practice change among various players. International agencies, donors, governments, and NGOs must all adapt their approaches to facilitate local ownership and empowerment. Agencies that provide funding and technical expertise must prioritise partnership-building with local actors, including community-based organisations (CBOs) and civil society groups, and recognise their experience and expertise. Instead of imposing solutions, agencies must engage in genuine dialogue with local stakeholders to co-design and implement initiatives that reflect local priorities and knowledge. Many organisations believe they already do this, but without processes for frequent, honest, and critical self-reflection, they are often fooling themselves.
A more flexible and adaptive funding model is needed. This means moving away from rigid project cycles and predefined outcomes, towards greater experimentation, learning, and adaptation. By embracing innovation and risk-taking, agencies can fund initiatives that better respond to evolving needs and complex challenges, ultimately leading to more impactful outcomes. Donors should be transparent about their decision-making processes, funding criteria, and evaluation methodologies to build trust with local organisations and ensure that resources are allocated equitably and effectively. Donors must also prioritise longer-term support for local initiatives. Real change happens slowly, and local organisations need time to build their operational and management capacity (leadership, governance, and technical skills), plan and implement programmes, and adapt implementation to suit evolving contexts.
With COVID-19-related travel bans and restrictions removed, let’s hope organisations and donors don’t slip back into their old comfort zones and again sideline localisation.
This edition of Enabling Education Review
The call for articles left the theme of ‘knowledge, power, ownership’ open to interpretation. We wanted to know what authors felt was important within this wider topic. The submissions focus on the top-down processes described above as well as bottom-up community approaches to education. The articles span a range of topics. Each explores what it means to value everyone’s knowledge and how giving people a voice enables ownership of education and development.
Local knowledge and participation
Authors from the Consortium for Street Children, We Yone Child Foundation and Concern for the Deprived Welfare Association reflect on the process of developing training on trauma-informed approaches for practitioners working with street-connected children in Sierra Leone. Local knowledge framed the initial development process before practitioners from other country contexts contributed to making the training internationally relevant. Later, Eunice discusses the role of public participation in the development and roll out of Kenya’s competency-based curriculum.
Language
Mikailu’s article from Northern Nigeria considers local-language education policy. The author explores the RANA programme, which has demonstrated the value of literacy teaching methods based on Hausa’s linguistic features rather English-centric modes of teaching children to read. In the second of three articles from Nigeria, Yemisi reflects on her own experiences as a sign language interpreter and advocacy champion for deaf learners.
Young and old
Amanda explores the importance of community and intergenerational relationships for learning and development in England, while Ruth highlights the importance of understanding young people’s agency in different contexts.
Colonial influences
Ian and Mustafa explore the colonial influences that shaped education development in Afghanistan and what directions may be taken in future. Meanwhile, Jamie interrogates the colonial impact more globally to focus on adaptation, inclusion, and the purpose of education. Mohammed reflects on his own education in Gaza and how Israel’s illegal occupation, oppressive colonial policies, and relentless bombardment have affected the education system. In the final article from Nigeria, Nnenna discusses the importance of decolonising the curriculum in Nigerian primary schools to enable students to see themselves and their contexts in the books that they study.
People and practices
In a trio of articles from EENET team members, Ingrid reflects on some of the power dynamics that contradict a movement for inclusive education; Helen writes about being a disabled consultant from the UK working in other countries; and Su discusses the problems researchers face trying to ensure local ownership when leading projects funded through overseas development grants.
An anonymous author reflects again on the role of consultants from the UK working in other countries. And from India, Veera focuses on the importance of taking a critical and reflective approach to equality, diversity, and inclusion.
The editors also reflect on why Enabling Education Review is being published late, and why a focus on worker wellbeing is more important than deadlines. We hope you enjoy reading the articles and that they leave you with food for thought. Contact us if you wish to talk about any of the issues.
Kanwal is an Indian education consultant with over three decades of experience in special and inclusive education.
Aubrey Moono has 26 years experience as an educationist in Zambia, half of which as an inclusive teacher educator.