Localisation and the Future of EiE: Reflections from an INEE Country Focal Point
On 28 May, 2025 I organized a virtual Meet-Up for the Italian INEE community on Beyond Aid: What’s Next for EiE from the point of view of a donor country. The event was part of a global series initiated by INEE to create spaces for reflection and visioning in light of the shifting funding landscape for EiE and broader calls for sectoral transformation.
It brought together a rich variety of participants—from humanitarian practitioners and INGO staff to government officials and academia—many with roots in both Italy and crisis-affected regions. Participants were invited to reflect on the evolving role of Education in Emergencies (EiE) in a moment of shifting geopolitical priorities and shrinking donor budgets.
When I agreed to facilitate the Meet-Up, I didn’t fully anticipate how professionally complex the conversation would become. The workshop offered a unique opportunity to reflect on the localisation discourse, the changing aid architecture, and the sector’s own limitations in facing new realities. This wasn’t just a technical discussion. It was about identity, legitimacy, and purpose. What does it mean to support quality education in emergencies when traditional funding models are diminishing? Who holds knowledge, who sets priorities, and whose timelines and methods are considered legitimate? And what role can networks like INEE play in making localisation a lived reality, rather than just a policy commitment?
While the session was short (just one hour), the conversations were rich and, at times, unsettling. In this blog, I offer some personal reflections that stem from the discussion, as well as from the broader learning that INEE’s global initiative is prompting.
Localisation in Practice: Beyond Buzzwords
The term ‘localisation’ surfaced throughout the session, but not always with a shared understanding. For some, it was about funding—transferring resources closer to where decisions are made. For others, it referred to legitimacy, agency, or the right to lead.
A central question emerged: What does localisation look like in practice, especially in donor countries that shape much of the global EiE agenda?
Participants emphasised that localisation must move beyond symbolic participation. Meaningful localisation is not solely about project implementation, but about embedding local leadership into the planning, governance, and accountability structures from the outset.
One participant noted that localisation is often conflated with the devolution of financial responsibility to local actors—without adequate investment in their systemic capacity. There was a shared sense that the sector is undergoing an “accelerated localisation by default, ” describing how shrinking international funding is pushing more responsibility onto local actors without adequate planning, resources, or support. Participants noted this shift is happening unintentionally due to global retrenchment, not through strategic reform. Localisation risks becoming an unfair burden on under-resourced partners. Instead, it must be a practical, fair, and needs-based approach—tailored to local capacities and contexts, with long-term commitment.
Living the Transition: Between Disruption and Adjustment
The current funding landscape is characterised by unpredictability, reductions, and re-prioritisation. Participants shared how they are still adjusting—strategically and emotionally—to the implications of donor cuts. Some mentioned internal restructuring, including a case where an INGO’s EiE portfolio was merged into a broader basic education programme to streamline costs. Others referenced emergency appeals to keep existing work afloat. A few are experimenting with new models of engagement, including more holistic education responses across sectors such as nutrition and protection.
What struck me was a sense of pause—a collective holding of breath. People are adapting, yes, but also reflecting on what might be lost: long-standing partnerships & programming, or simply the time and space to think long-term. To move forward, participants emphasised the need for purposeful spaces where actors can reconnect with their mission, exchange strategies, and move from reflection to practical collaboration. One concrete example involved setting up dedicated teams to support local organisations more effectively—streamlining grant processes and offering context-specific guidance throughout programme delivery. This kind of embedded support can help dismantle systemic barriers and lay the groundwork for more balanced and effective partnerships.
The Problem of Capacity – And Why It’s Not What You Think
When we talk about local capacity, we often default to the narrative that “local actors need to build more capacity.” But what if the real issue lies in the system’s inability to recognise, trust, and support existing capacities?
During the session, several participants noted how knowledge systems remain unidirectional and externally driven. They maintained that local data often does not travel upwards in ways that influence decision-making. Feedback loops are not as strong as they should be, and technical expertise is often siloed within international agencies. Several questions emerged: Are volunteers and local actors best placed to lead? Probably yes. But is their agency being enhanced? Are their insights shaping strategy, budgets, and timelines?
This led to a deeper discussion about the need for structured leadership development at the local level—not as a training exercise, but as a redistribution of power and inclusion in governance cycles. According to participants, the focus should be less on building capacity from the outside and more on creating systems that allow local actors and knowledge to lead.
INEE’s Role: From Connector to Enabler
One of the most energising parts of the event was the collective recognition that INEE has a unique role to play as a convener and enabler of knowledge exchange. Participants called for INEE to facilitate horizontal knowledge systems that centre local expertise around key technical gaps—including budgeting models, fundraising diversification, and governance.
Rather than focusing solely on capacity-building in the traditional sense (from “global” to “local”), participants viewed INEE’s value in enabling two-way learning. That means creating spaces where local actors are not just recipients but co-definers of technical standards, programme frameworks, and funding models. INEE’s unique role should be to strengthen mutual learning systems—not unidirectional training flows—ensuring local expertise drives sectoral priorities.
Final Reflections: Navigating Uncertainty with Purpose
Facilitating the Beyond Aid: What’s Next for EiE session in Italy reminded me of the tensions we sit within the humanitarian education sector. We want to move faster, but also more equitably. We want to shift power, but also preserve systems that we know. We want localisation, but sometimes struggle to let go of control.
These are not contradictions to resolve, but realities to navigate. We attempted, in one breakout room, to imagine a reimagined EiE sector—one no longer bound by colonial legacies or the limits of emergency logic. But that exercise proved harder than expected. Participants kept hesitating and circling back to the now. And maybe that’s telling. Perhaps we’re still too embedded in the systems we’re trying to change. Or perhaps we need more spaces—like this one—to build that future together, one conversation at a time.
Because what’s next for EiE should not be just about surviving donor cuts—it should be about the far more ambitious task of reimagining the sector altogether