In conclusion, let us recall the main lessons of this research. First, we found that the influence of International Geneva (IG) was perceived as limited at the field level. The concept can be blurred; for example, there is confusion between the SDC in Bern and the organizations based in Geneva. In particular, other international places are considered more important for education. Nevertheless, some specific domains can constitute the added value of IG. This was found to be the case for education in emergencies, advocacy, and especially the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), or for academic activities in the international dimensions of education (research and training).  

Second, when we looked at how international cooperation in education worked at the IG level, we found that this entity acts according to a top-down process, without listening to the field, while relaying some positive experiences. This results in actions that are disconnected from reality. Aware of this situation, the organizations are conceding more and more power to the local antennas, thus reducing the influence of Geneva on cooperative activities. 

Finally, we dealt with intersectorality in international cooperation. Even if it is generally seen as an added value, its implementation is ineffective within IG at national levels. Despite a few conclusive but isolated initiatives, organizations within the same sector do not interact sufficiently. 

From these research findings, several recommendations can be made to improve the effectiveness of cooperation in International Geneva if one considers the impact of the actions on the beneficiaries as more critical than the IG communication strategy. To concretize these recommendations, a systematic analysis of good practices could be envisaged in light of the few positive experiences related by the respondents in the framework of this research.