Localisation and Education in Conflict and Protracted Crisis Contexts

Policy Brief 2025-12-02

The global humanitarian and development aid systems continue to be shaped by entrenched power asymmetries. Decision-making authority over education sector response priorities and programme design often remains concentrated among donors and international agencies, while voices from the Global South are more often positioned as downstream implementers rather than strategic actors. Frequently, global commitments to localisation modify the language around partnerships between the Global North and South, but the underlying distribution of power remains unchanged. This gap between intention and practice raises a key question: What changes are required to genuinely shift power to local actors and strengthen local education responses in conflict and crisis settings? This report consolidates contributions from the Education Research in Conflict and Crisis (ERICC) consortium to respond to this question. This synthesis draws on empirical research from seven contexts of protracted crises: Bangladesh, Jordan, Lebanon, Myanmar, Nigeria, South Sudan and Syria, drawing on ERICC studies (n=27) and interviews with ERICC country research teams (n=6) to identify the following actionable implications for the global agenda on localisation. First, humanitarian and development sectors need to recognise and resource existing community-led education efforts. Across a range of conflict and protracted crisis settings, communities and households play a central role in sustaining education systems. Local actors mobilise scarce resources and develop low-cost strategies to maintain access and continuity of education within both state and non-state education systems (Akogun et al., forthcoming; Al Zawahreh et al., 2025; Dazberger et al., in preparation; Maalouf & Brun, 2025). The speed, flexibility and reach of local collective action are often greater than state and humanitarian responses. However, not all community-led initiatives necessarily advance inclusion, equity and conflict sensitivity. Localisation requires governments and donors to recognise, resource and integrate existing community-led initiatives into education system planning, drawing on clear safeguarding principles for engagement, so that promising local action is strengthened rather than sidelined by parallel systems. Further, localisation efforts should support participatory governance as a core education system function to move decision-making closer to schools and communities, build two-way accountability and expand inclusion (Tozan et al., forthcoming). Second, shift financing and resource governance from highly fragmented, short-term, inequitable funding toward predictable, locally controlled financing systems that enable schools and communities to plan, adapt and sustain provision. ERICC evidence shows that centralised and short-term financing undermines the efficiency and sustainability of community-embedded education delivery (Bani Ata et al., 2025). Education systems in protracted crises often rely heavily on household contributions, with families devoting substantial portions of their income to sustain learning even amid severe economic strain (Homonchuk et al., 2025). Localisation efforts should support households as central education financiers, including cash transfers directly to households, where household educational spending reaches extreme levels and education supply already exists. Third, realign power, incentives and accountability away from one-way upward reporting toward shared decision-making and community-facing accountability. Some of the greatest barriers to making localised responses a reality lie in the incentive structures that encourage external actors to set up parallel systems and keep power with international actors, often reducing local organisations to subcontracted deliverers and crowding out their representational and accountability roles (Homonchuk et al., forthcoming). Shifting to genuine localisation requires reconfiguring aid incentives and financing so local actors are rewarded for convening, advocacy and oversight, not just project outputs (Ibid.). In addition, externally-funded capacity-building efforts should be paired with structural transfers of authority and resources, otherwise, efforts to strengthen civil society will have a limited impact (Ibid.). Monitoring and compliance systems must likewise move from upward reporting to reciprocal practices that return information to teachers and communities to drive local decision-making, equity and learning (Borkowski et al., forthcoming). Fourth, follow through on commitments to long-term trust-based partnerships grounded in transparency, mutual respect and solidarity. Localisation requires collaboration built on trust, enabling faster, context-appropriate solutions rather than centralised decision-making (Akogun et al., forthcoming). Participatory evidence generation paired with inclusive consultations can also drive governance reform, as shown by Adamawa State’s 2024 teacher-management bill in Nigeria, co-developed through trusted researcher–policymaker partnerships and demand-driven ERICC research (Akogun et al., 2025). Bottom-up research processes strengthen local ownership and uptake but should be complemented by rigorous assessment of outcomes and value for money to ensure quality, effectiveness and sustainability (Diazgranados et al., forthcoming).