Beyond the Rhetoric: AidEx 2025 and the Reality of Localisation for Small Charities

By Olivia Barker White

Earlier this month myself and Lizzy Bird, SIDCN Treasurer, had the opportunity to attend the AidEx and Development2030 conference in Geneva. AidEx is the global humanitarian aid event, bringing together NGOs, UN agencies, governments, donors, suppliers, and social enterprises to connect, share ideas, and showcase innovations that support humanitarian and international development work.

We were attending as trustees and representatives of Small International Development Charities Network (SIDCN), which is a partner of the AidEx conference – it was great seeing our logo in the conference brochure! Marlene Kawira, SIDCN Trustee, and Alice Njonjo, SIDCN freelance team, represented us at AidEx conference in Nairobi earlier this year and will be sharing their reflections in the coming weeks too.

Both were fascinating events packed with learning, discussion, networking, workshops, and the chance to meet some truly inspirational people.

One key theme dominated the agenda: localisation - shifting power, resources, and decision-making from international or northern organisations to the people and organisations closest to the communities affected.

The Humanitarian Reset

At AidEx, the question was no longer if the humanitarian sector should localise, but how fast and how responsibly it can do so under the new wave of reform known as The Humanitarian Reset.

The Reset represents the latest and most urgent reform effort in humanitarian aid. It has been catalysed by the shock of the US suspension of humanitarian assistance (and subsequent suspensions by other nations) in early 2025, combined with rising global needs and mounting geopolitical pressures.

The Humanitarian Reset may be the sector’s last real chance to make localisation more than a slogan. The consensus at AidEx 2025 was clear: the principles are sound, the intent is sincere, but the execution must now match the rhetoric. Localisation will only succeed if donors commit long-term funding directly to local actors; INGOs redefine their role as supporters, not saviours; and local organisations are equipped — financially, technically, and emotionally — to lead.

What Does Localisation Mean in Practice?

I believe it means employing local people, not foreign expats; allowing local delivery partners to manage their own budgets and design their own programmes; not micromanaging in-country partner staff; not having Western-based trustees sitting on or chairing boards of local partners; and most importantly, listening to the needs of people on the ground and trusting that they know what they are doing. It’s about stepping back, leaving egos at the door, and recognising that Western NGOs do not have all the answers - and in fact, have a lot to learn. As one delegate said:

“Localisation isn’t about stepping back. It’s about stepping aside, so others can step forward.”

Yet with 95% of philanthropic institutions based in Europe and North America (86,000 foundations in the USA alone versus only 47 in Africa) controlling 97% of the wealth, my question is: how will this happen in practice? The Grand Bargain (2016) committed to channel 25% of humanitarian funding to local or national responders by 2020, but this core ambition has massively underperformed. Localisation will never be realised if the majority of wealth and power remain concentrated in the Global North.

The devastating cuts to international aid are being felt across the globe. The World Food Programme (WFP) warns that up to 13.7 million additional people currently receiving food assistance could be pushed into “emergency” hunger levels. UNICEF warns that global cuts to education aid could force an additional 6 million children out of school by the end of 2026. And Oxfam predicts that a further 19 million people could be pushed into extreme poverty by 2030.

Unintentional Localisation?

So often, when INGOs pull out of countries or cut programmes due to crises, it is smaller, grassroots, local actors who step in to pick up the pieces. We saw this during the Covid-19 pandemic, and we are seeing it again now in the aftermath of global aid cuts.

Is this unintentional localisation? Is this localisation happening from the bottom up rather than the top down? It’s hard to see how this can be sustained when local organisations are being pressured to meet increasing need without any additional resource to do so.

It also raises an important question: are INGOs really needed — or at least, needed as much as they currently are? Grassroots organisations are best placed to respond quickly to crises. They are agile, flexible, and deeply attuned to the needs, cultures, and nuances of the communities they serve. Kids Club Kampala, a SIDCN member of which I am the UK CEO, saw a very real example of this recently in Uganda.

Lara and Maggie

Lara (name changed for privacy) is a refugee from the DRC who recently arrived in Uganda with her sisters and grandmother. One day, while playing with friends, she wandered far from home and got lost on the streets. Maggie (name changed for privacy) was living with her aunt in Naguru slum while her father served overseas in the army. Her aunt was physically abusive towards her and did not allow her to attend school.

Both Lara and Maggie were rescued by ActionAid Uganda and taken to the Bwaise Violence Prevention and Response Shelter, one of their projects in Kampala. There they received shelter, medical care, and counselling, while social workers traced their relatives with the aim of reintegrating both children into safe family care.

ActionAid has been working in Uganda since 1982 and runs ten Violence Prevention and Response Shelters like the one in Bwaise. As a large, multinational INGO, ActionAid receives much of its funding from international aid agencies and government budgets. Following the UK aid cuts, ActionAid lost over £4 million from the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) alone. As a result, they have had to make widespread redundancies and cuts to essential programmes — one of which is the Bwaise Shelter, which has now sadly had to close.

Kids Club Kampala is a small, local, grassroots organisation led by local people in Uganda. Due to their strong reputation and trusted relationships with local and national government, they are often the first point of call when INGOs lose funding and have to cut programmes.

If Kids Club Kampala were not there to take in Lara and Maggie, they would have been left to fend for themselves with no hope of reuniting with their families.

Both girls arrived at Kids Club Kampala’s Ewafe transitional home in October, and their team of social workers are now working with the team from Bwaise to continue tracing their relatives and hopefully reintegrate them with safe families soon.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

This mirrors what happened during the Covid-19 pandemic around the world. As large INGOs and aid agencies pulled out of the Global South; smaller, local organisations stepped in to fill the gap. Once again, Kids Club Kampala in Uganda were called upon by local and national government to support communities in crisis. Through converting their education centres into foodbanks they provided a staggering 45 million meals to those at risk of acute hunger. During the pandemic, localisation happened overnight — local actors led the response out of necessity. Yet once the emergency eased, the system quickly reverted to old patterns — “a missed opportunity,” as one AidEx delegate described it.

At AidEx, a few voices tried to put a positive spin on the aid cuts, suggesting that a reduced INGO presence could create more space for grassroots actors. But how can this possibly be sustainable without the necessary funding to back it up? Kids Club Kampala received no additional support to care for Lara and Maggie, just as they received none to run foodbanks during Covid.

It is unlikely that localisation will truly be achieved by 2030 as localisation cannot succeed on goodwill alone. While organisations like Kids Club Kampala are doing everything they can, smaller NGOs simply lack the resources, funding and power to absorb the shock of these devastating aid cuts.

This current reality is not sustainable. The growing expectation that local partners will do more with less doesn’t empower them. It endangers them and puts them at risk. It shifts responsibility without shifting resources or power. This is not true localisation; it is obligatory and unsupported localisation, born out of necessity rather than partnership — a far cry from the planned, well-resourced, and equitable model the sector claims to be striving for.

If we truly want to see localisation happen, we must start putting our money — and our trust — into the hands of those closest to the communities affected.

Real change won’t come from declarations or pledges, but from decisive action.

---

Members, we'd love to hear from you.

This raises important questions for other small international development charities: Are you seeing the same trend? As larger NGOs scale back or lose capacity, are your local partners being left to pick up the pieces?

At SIDCN, we’re keen to understand how widespread this reality is, and whether our members are aware of the so-called “Humanitarian Reset” and what it might mean in practice. Are your partners being quietly expected to shoulder more responsibility without additional resources, funding, or support? Or, conversely, are they ready and eager to step into greater leadership roles if given the chance?

We’d love to hear from our network. Please share your thoughts in the comments, or email amplifyteam@sidcn.org — whether this agenda is new to you, whether you’re already feeling its effects, or whether you have examples of how your local partners are adapting.

These are vital conversations for our sector to have openly and honestly, so that localisation doesn’t just happen to small organisations, but with them.