THE LOCALISATION TRAJECTORY 1994-2025

Compared to five years ago, many in the international aid sector are now talking about ‘localisation’, though still with different misunderstandings about the why and what it means in practice. Listen in to the conversations and you still hear different interpretations and ongoing questions:

·        Localisation comes from the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit!

·        Localisation is for the humanitarian, not the development sector!

·        Localisation is about giving local actors more money!

·        Localisation requires more capacity-building of local actors by international ones!

·        Localisation is about supporting local non-governmental actors!

·        Localisation means (equitable) partnerships with local actors!

·        Localisation is about local leadership!

·        Localisation requires transformation of the international aid sector!

·     Is localisation still on the agenda after the cumulative ODA cuts from Western donors?

This brief provides a succinct overview of how ‘localisation’ has evolved over time.

It points out that its origins lie in the 1990s and early 2000s, well before the World Humanitarian Summit, and applied to the peacebuilding and development sectors from early on. It traces its evolution from a focus on (the quantity and belatedly the quality) of financing, to one on the political economy (and the distribution and uses of power) of the international aid sector. More recently, the favourite framing has become that of ‘local leadership’, without much reflection on very different possible styles of leadership, and the realities of competition for ‘leadership’, also among local actors. It corrects the reduction of ‘localisation’ practice non-governmental actors, as if it was fairly similar to ‘civil society strengthening’.

The brief then sketches the drastic changes since 2024, geo-politically and in the international aid sector, and concludes with the question: Will this commitment that ultimately seeks to structurally change the nature of international cooperation, gain in influence? Will it be sidelined as national interests and organisational self-interests fuel competition, among international actors, among national actors, and between international and national actors? Will it continue with a similar, ultimately very modest, practical influence, within a sphere of shrinking ODA budgets? Read it here

Western INGOs Need to Engage with the Key Issues at Home

Most international NGOs engaged in development cooperation, humanitarian action and/or peace-support work exclusively or predominantly in non-Western continents and countries. But international ‘solidarity’ tomorrow demands that INGOs (also) do much more, and more structural, work in their home societies. For the wellbeing of a few billion people around the world, and if that is not convincing enough, also for their own survival.
 
For the past decades, the largely international orientation was fundamentally grounded in a notion that ‘You have the problems, we have the solutions.’ The ‘solution’ came in the forms of finance, technical expertise, organisational competency, managerial skills, alleged high moral integrity, and the political superiority of ‘democracy’. Sadly, we now see that the Western countries are also facing a mounting pile of ‘problems’ and are important drivers of rapidly deteriorating global problems. Key ones are global warming and biodiversity collapse; immigration and asylum; profound economic disruption; extreme inequality; polarisation and de-democratisation; and rejection of international norms.

If Western INGOs want to be more than a project factory and really behave as ‘civil society’, they need to engage with the growing pain points in their home societies. That may result in less income as they will sometimes have to forgo government funding. But there are plenty of examples of Western NGO-style organisations that had and have considerable influence notwithstanding their modest size. At the same time, there will be plenty of opportunities to work with governments, if they go beyond protest to proposition, and engage a wider public in their own societies. More detail here.

OUR GMI WORK ON TEAM DYNAMICS AND CHANGE PROCESSES

In today’s volatile world, many organisations, be they from the private, public or not-for-profit sector, must adapt. Some do it proactively, others are forced by the rapid and profound changes in their operating environment(s).

Some organisational changes are driven by the objective of surviving and continuing in a disrupted world. Some, perhaps more rarely, are based on a fundamental review of the organisation’s purpose and mission within the world of today and tomorrow. One way of driving change is to focus primarily on the financial side. Another one is to do so with real attention also to the people who are affected by that change.

Organisational change processes are not easy; nor are most very effective. An average of 70%, across all sectors, do not fully yield the promised or hoped-for ‘result’. Most also become painful exercises, certainly for those who have to undergo a change process decided, designed and driven by others – but also for some of those driving it. That pain can seriously diminish a quality that is very precious in any organisation but does not show up in the accounts: trust. Too easily, those who are undergoing the change are accused of ‘resisting change’ because ‘they want to stay in their professional and personal comfort zone’. And those undergoing the change become suspicious that the ones who decided and drive it are definitely protecting their own professional and personal status and interests. The pain sometimes relates to the objective, the ‘what’ of the change process. But most of the time it comes from ‘how’ the change process is handled, a ‘how’ that fails because it ignores or misreads the human dimension in organisational life. The full human dimension, not just the brain.

It need not be that way. As GMI, over the years, we have worked with teams to overcome their internal tensions and accompanied organisations and networks in various change processes.

For the past six years, one of us runs an annual course in Paris on organisational change processes, for Masters Degree students. We also have an online course  on ‘Coaching Skills for Relationship System Intervention’, offered via the Systems and Complexity in Organisation (SCiO) network In the past we also co-designed and been co-directors of courses on ‘leadership’ and (responsible) followership, and on ‘being a trusted advisor’,

For this accompaniment, we draw on a variety of experiences and sources: We have our own experiences of change processes in several organisations as employee (in mid- and senior management level) but also of being part of and engaging with Boards of Trustees of different organisations. We have greatly benefitted from formal training in the Being at Full Potential approach and in Organisational and Relationship System Coaching (ORSC). We have been inspired by peer-learning enabled by the  Business Agility Institute and the Presencing Institute, and by certain management literature.

Are you curious, want to hear more? Are you struggling with tensions within or between teams, uncertain how to handle a change process in your organisation or network? Do get in touch.

PARTICIPATORY LEADERSHIP and DECISION-MAKING. Why and how

Take decisions fast! Break things if needed! That seems to be the current model for leadership and decision-making, promoted by e.g. the tech-barons, in an ultra-capitalist world which has no other concern than maximizing profit.

Such approach tends to feed the ego and the wallet of the very few at the top. It gets justified by arguments about efficiency, effectiveness and adaptability. It can work – for a while- if you degrade people, the environment, a healthy and inclusive society. It is an expression, and enforcement, of hyper-individualism.

In the medium- and longer-term run however, the limitations and damaging consequences of such leadership style and decision-making approaches, become very visible. We can see them all around us, and the next generation will be confronted with them even more. There are other ways.

This brief examines participatory leadership as an alternative to traditional top-down decision-making. It highlights how involving people in decisions leads to better outcomes, smoother implementation, professional growth, and less pressure on leaders. It also identifies common barriers—such as leaders’ fear of losing control—and outlines the conditions needed for genuine participation beyond simple consultation. The brief further introduces deliberation and gradients of agreement as effective approaches for building broad support. Three case studies demonstrate how these participatory methods work in practice. Find the brief here. 

THE STRATEGIC CUBE: Where do you go in an ecosystem of organisations?

The world development and humanitarian organisations are operating in is not just changing; it is fundamentally shifting. Climate-driven disasters are intensifying, conflicts are rising and becoming more complex, political freedoms are shrinking even in traditionally stable democracies, and multilateral cooperation is weakening. NGOs are facing a world that needs more from them but their resources are shrinking. Many are asking themselves: What should our future role be in these circumstances? Are we primarily responders to urgent needs or actors with a mandate that includes rights and justice? Do we continue to implement our own projects or shift toward enabling local actors to lead? How much do we work within our own Western societies, where public understanding of global crises is eroding, though we are increasingly experiencing the same challenges? The Strategic Cube gives organisations a simple, visual way to articulate who they are today and who they aspire to become tomorrow. It brings structure to conversations that are otherwise fragmented, emotional, or avoided altogether. It complements an earlier GMI brief on ‘Reimagining INGOs’. Download here.

TIME TO REIMAGINE INGOs?

We are living a historical turning point. The world order, as it was created after WWII, and particularly the world we have known since the collapse of the Soviet Union (1989-1990) no longer exists. Profound political changes are underway, geo-politically but also within and between Western countries. Ideology is again a powerful driver of politics, as it was in the first part of the 20th century. Democratic values and norms are actively pushed back. Neo-liberal economics on the other hand remains strong, even though its negative consequences are now plainly visible. And the climate and extinction crises are worsening, with many tipping points now in reach.

The cumulative cuts in Official Development Assistance (ODA), particularly in 2024 and 2025, are a consequence of these broader developments. Confronted with all this, in recent months most UN agencies, INGOs but also national and local NGOs/CSOs, understandably, have been focused on downsizing, searching for alternative income and sometimes mere surviving.

Yet international aid agencies, the mainstream INGOs in particular, need to seriously ask the question whether a radically different future might require a more fundamental organisational re-orientation, not just of the business model but of the very purpose, mission and modus operandi of the organisation.

Three key questions are:
1. The endless stream of ‘projects’ will never be enough to mitigate the increasingly negative consequences of the bigger trends, driven by economic, political and military elites. What must we do to also weaken and reverse the drivers of these negative trends?
2. Should we not also work on the increasingly visible social, economic and political fractures in our own (Western) home societies? Not only because we have there our support base, but because the global environmental, economic and security interconnectedness and interdependencies can no longer be denied.
3. Why are we primarily communicating about poverty, misery and need, and not much more about the millions of positive initiatives by communities, towns and cities, and the larger social movements, that give hope, encouragement and practical ideas to the many who know that things are going in the wrong direction but do not know what they can do about it?

The article contains a question sheet that helps you take the reflection from the immediate financial challenge to the deeper strategic questions. Find them here.

DEFUNDING AND DELEGITIMISING THE UN: What future for global cooperation?

In June 2025, the United Nations turn 80. However, in this important birthday year, it finds itself under major financial pressure and serious political attack. In recent months, most attention has gone to the impacts of the financial crisis: projects and programmes abruptly terminated, thousands of staff made redundant, possible relocations of staff and entire offices to cheaper places, and closures or mergers of different UN agencies.

While understandable, this is drawing attention away from intense political attacks on the UN because it defends certain international norms and rules, promotes certain values, as well as environmental protection and climate crisis action. The consequences of these political attacks, by some member states, are potentially much worse than from its forced downsizing. We need to remember that the League of Nations, created to prevent the horrors of war after the carnage of WWI, de facto collapsed in the 1930s, when militarization and preparations for war simply overran its mandate to maintain peace and security.

This brief examines both the financial situation and the political pressures in some detail. It then raises the key question: What possible futures for multilateral cooperation? Will the UN survive and continue as the primary platform for global multilateral negotiation and collaboration? Will it only be able to play that role on areas of undeniable common interest such as air- and maritime transport, but be made largely powerless on the critical issues, such as peace, security, human rights, environmental and climate action? And if the UN is severely weakened, as it was during the Cold War, would other bodies step up as major platforms for multilateral collaboration – at least among its members? Which ones, the regional bodies such as the AU, OAS, ASEAN, EU? The G7, G20 or G77? Would we see a re-emergence of a non-aligned movement, if we find ourselves in a new ‘Cold War’ era, now with 3 instead of 2 major powers?

What are your ideas about the possible futures for multilateral cooperation? Download the brief here.

UN AND INTERNATIONAL AID ESTABLISHMENT: Transformation starts within

This note complements our earlier brief ‘Western Aid Cooperation in Meltdown – Radical Change Required’ which discussed the politically-driven changes in the aid sector and in multilateral norms and -cooperation, that we are experiencing today.

It is mainly addressed at the UN, Red Cross Movement, INGOs and national/local non-governmental organisations, that are part of the ‘international aid establishment’.

Its purpose is to mobilise mental and emotional energy beyond ‘surviving’ the aid budget cuts. Its main messages are

§ The state of the world today and tomorrow requires a profound transformation of the UN and of the aid establishment, not another ‘reform’ or ‘reset’ to what is was a few years ago.

§ The UN and mainstream aid agencies need to critically examine how they have been part of the ‘old system’ with great achievements but also profound flaws. A ‘Braver New World’ requires that we drop our own poor practices, among them costly ways of working, ego-centric competition and very hierarchical organisational cultures.

§ Concentrating the remaining resources, capabilities and energy overwhelmingly on ‘humanitarian’ aid’ would be a strategic mistake. It will remain desperately needed, but humanitarian action is largely reactive and in reality only alleviates suffering inadequately and temporarily. We must also robustly engage with the macro-drivers of global inequality, exploitation, environmental destruction, misery and suffering. Fundamentally, this is about ‘economics’.

§ Western ‘international’ NGOs need to engage much more in their ‘home societies’, as it is primarily the Western governments, voted in by parts of their populations, who are most actively withdrawing from international cooperation, with aid budgets cuts, but also politically.

§ Local and national NGOs also need to critically reflect on their own behaviours, among them their competitiveness, leaderships, independent thinking and ability to propose.

Fragmentation and competition are costly: The times require a major pooling of resources: joined programmes, shared offices, merging organisations and international organisations really supporting and complementing local and national actors.

The brief offers an initial set of questions for critical self-reflection, grouped under the broad categories of UN, INGOs, local/national non-governmental organisations. Most are equally relevant for members of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. You may disagree with some of these questions or their underlying assumptions. That is fine. Your own insights, creativity and wisdom are warmly invited. Refine, change, add to them – but stay with the purpose: To courageously review how we too have been part of a Western international cooperation system, with serious flaws. We will not be able to contribute to a more equitable future without also transforming ourselves. Download the brief here.