Localisation is increasingly recognised as a key to enabling locally-owned peacebuilding that is genuinely responsive to local realities, yet progress remains slow. What stands in the way?
With funding from the Swedish Postcode Lottery Foundation and in collaboration with our partner Mobaderoon, our project explored what local peacebuilders want from localisation, how international organisations can better support local peacebuilding efforts and how to overcome common barriers to localisation.
Our research explored localisation efforts across four countries – Kenya, Lebanon, Rwanda, and Syria. We summarised the findings from each context in four country-specific reports. We also prepared a global report outlining key elements of effective localisation approaches from across all the countries and recommendations for donors and policy-makers, international agencies and local civil society.
Who did we talk to about localisation in peacebuilding?
We talked to more than 425 local actors, including our local peacebuilding partners, to understand perceptions and experiences of localisation in their contexts, what challenges they need to overcome and how international actors, including International Alert, can better support locally led peacebuilding efforts.
We asked a variety of voices crucial in local peacebuilding processes – representatives of civil society and women’s groups, religious leaders and business association leaders, national NGOs and international organisations and donors – about their views and experiences.
Localising peacebuilding means having stakeholders who are also willing to accommodate the local situation, the local context, the local realities, to ensure that their partners bring the best of themselves.
Dr. Elvis Mbembe, President and CEO, iPeace.
Why this project matters now
In 2016, more than 60 humanitarian donors and agencies signed the Grand Bargain, which included a commitment to deliver 25% of their funding as locally as possible. Yet in 2024, only a fraction are reaching their targets. Within the peacebuilding sector, we have seen a similar discussion on localisation. Although, in recent years, this topic has gained traction, there needs to be more exploration of what this might look like in practice.
Our research shows that local ownership and leadership isn’t just about moving money – it’s about transforming how we work together for peace.
What are the common localisation challenges we identified?
- Different actors understand ‘localisation’ in different ways. Diverse perspectives around the term can cause communication problems and tensions over unmet expectations. Actors can have competing understandings of and interests in the outcomes of localisation processes.
- Power imbalances persist between international donors and local organisations, with decision-making authority often staying at the international level.
- Trust gaps exist at multiple levels – between international and local actors, among local organisations, and within communities across devices.
- In conflict-affected areas, local peacebuilders face increased security risks and can experience resistance from those who benefit from instability.
- Rigid funding mechanisms and heavy compliance requirements add an extra burden on local organisations.
Localisation in peacebuilding: country methodologies and insights
The contexts that we chose for our research show a lot of diversity in terms of geography, culture, conflict dynamics, history of colonialism and the current role of the state. However, they are all places where there is an active civil society and ongoing discussion around localisation.
In Kenya, we conducted regional dialogue workshops across the country, bringing together participants from local peacebuilding structures, including civil society, community leaders, religious institutions, government agencies, and INGOs and donors. Participants identified a wide range of measures needed for effective localisation in peacebuilding in Kenya while also giving examples of successful locally-led initiatives.
In Lebanon, working in very challenging conditions, we held discussions with local CSOs, interviews with experts and an online survey with NGOs. While participants felt there was positive momentum on localisation, they still identified various barriers and recommendations for improvement.
In Rwanda, we held discussions and interviews in four provinces and the capital city, Kigali, with representatives of local and central government, academia and civil society organisations (CSOs). Existing local peacebuilding mechanisms include both state-led channels and those led by civil society that build on traditional mechanisms. Participants identified recommendations for localisation which would strengthen local peacebuilding.
In Syria, Alert’s partner Mobaderoon conducted research in three phases, starting with community members in 11 areas, moving on to representatives of local authorities and CSOs, and concluding with representatives of international non-governmental organisations (INGOs). Their inclusive approach also included members of the diaspora. Participants identified a range of risks and barriers to localisation in the Syrian context, as well as recommendations.
Three keys to successful localisation in peacebuilding
While each country faces unique challenges, we found three essential elements for effective local peacebuilding:
- Building trust and legitimacy: Creating more robust connections between international and local partners, and between different groups within communities.
- Transforming power relationships: Shifting decision-making power to local actors and ensuring marginalised voices are heard
- Strengthening local capacity: recognising and amplifying existing peacebuilding skills and knowledge within communities.
Underpinning these three elements is the need for conflict-sensitive approaches in response to the unique challenges related to their contexts. This includes understanding how localisation efforts interact with local power dynamics and sources of tensions. It also involves working inclusively across different dividing lines, identifying vested and potentially competing interests in localisation, and ensuring that marginalised perspectives actively inform decision-making.
