Localisation Pick ‘n Mix

It’s easy and comfortable sitting in Headquarters passionately advocating for a commitment to localisation. After all, the theory of a localised approach to humanitarian action makes sense, we all agree that making our humanitarian action as local as possible and as international as necessary, will better address the needs of affected populations. That by engaging with local and national responders in a spirit of partnership and aiming to reinforce rather than replace local and national capacities we will deliver a more sustainable impact.

localisation means recognising, respecting and strengthening leadership and decision-making by local and national actors in humanitarian action, in order to better address the needs of affected populations.

Aligning our strategies with the World Humanitarian Summit imperative and ensuring a commitment by humanitarian actors to deliver on the theory is easy. It really does make sense and it is not as if it is a new initiative or principle. Governments and academics may have coined a new term and re-defined the principle – but most humanitarian actors (and many faith communities) have been committed to the principles of local ownership and action for decades. (Conversely, and in truth, as many governments and actors have not – a paternal, colonial approach is much easier and quicker.)

But then, one day the academic, the politician and the strategist visit the field! They spend time in a disaster-prone community, they meet a school principal who regularly evacuates his school because of flood, they meet with groups who support women who have experienced intimate partner violence. They meet real people, living in difficult and complex real-life contexts, within a community that is not as structured and supported as home. And, almost instantly, the champion of inclusive localisation theory, the passionate advocate of self-governance and ownership transforms into a paternalistic colonial. “Why are they still operating in that area if it is flooded regularly? Why haven’t you (the NGO) moved them? Why are you not making the government department move them?”

The gap between theory and practice is revealed in the field. I am a passionate advocate for localisation, always have been, whether we called it that or not, but it’s not as easy as you might think, and want. While it is a principle that can be mandated by donors and international stakeholders – it is not a practice that can be assumed, a mindset easily adopted or even believed in by all humanitarian professionals. When faced by the realities of injustice and inequity localisation is not often the first principle to jump to mind and practice.

You can’t pick ‘n mix what parts of localisation you like. You can’t mandate that all funds will go to local actors, but their decision on how to spend it will be subject to donor approval. You can’t pretend you are empowering the local government but then dictate how and where they will build facilities.

The principles of localisation are good and right, as international actors we must work to operationalise the theory, but let’s not pretend it’s easy and that we will always get the results we want, or think they should have. (Nor should donors imagine they will always get the quality of compliance or transparency they demand if they require localisation.) Giving people ownership, ensuring that they choose their priorities requires giving up my control and trusting them, even if I don’t agree. (And maybe working on informing their decisions and priorities through relationship and trust – not compliance.)

IMPOSSIBLE DECISIONS

His eyes filled with tears as he spoke passionately about the impact of reducing Aid budgets. He spoke of the effects of the worst drought in 30 years; of one community rationing themselves to 1 litre of water a day (which the women and girls collect in 25l jerry-cans from between 500m and 3km away); of another where 99% of children under 5 are malnourished, about 60% chronically; of another where conflict has surfaced because one has a shallow well, and the other an open source.

Let’s face it, no matter how you do the maths, no matter what data you use, no matter what the method of analysis used to make the decisions and choose priorities, the outcomes and the life choices are “sub-optimal” – or just plain lousy!

How do you tell the mother of a vulnerable, hungry child that you can’t help support her with nutrition supplements anymore because Australia’s funding has been reduced and from now on we are only able to support the most vulnerable, the chronically malnourished? How do you tell one community that you cannot support them with water source rehabilitation because at least they have some water, (even if it is shared with their livestock) and with the money available we have to narrow our focus to the neighbours who have less water and more people? How do you decide to close out of education programming in favour of water and food – because they are lifesaving as opposed to life-skills?

How do you tell the people with whom you have been working, and to whom you have made commitments that as a result of funding reductions you can no longer deliver on those commitments because the donor has reduced the funding - instead you will narrow the focus of your programming? How do you break promises, without breaking relationships and hope?

“We build relationships with the people, we make promises, we deliver and they trust us! Now, I have to break my promises. I don’t care so much about what the government thinks, I care about the children and I feel like I will let them down.”

From the distance of my comfortable office in Australia I can tell these passionate and committed community development workers that they should never make promises (Community Development theory 101). But, let’s be realistic – development practitioners make a promise of commitment and relationship when we walk into a community. We pride ourselves (as we should) on a development model that demands we build relationships of trust with our community partners, we work hard to ensure that they own the process, that their voices are heard and that they make the decisions of priority – we make a promise to be an along-sider.

Let me be clear, my colleague is a smart man, he appreciates the political and economic landscape in which we are operating, and he recognises the complexity of our decisions. He gets the theory, he knows that governments make political decisions, he understands the fiscal realities. But, in the end, it’s he and his team that have to make the tough decisions about who and what they will focus on, and communicate those decisions to the people with whom they work – a people who (for the most part) do not care about the politics and financial positions or forecasts.

“Right now, our government is investing the least we ever have in Australian Aid” ww.australianaid.org/ #AustralianAid

Typhoon Haiyan Statistics as of Monday Morning

The challenges that confront governments and agencies as they try to get aid to the desperate people and the devastated communities are immense. No one wants people to suffer and to feel completely alone and helpless in that suffering, but when transport routes have been destroyed and vehicles and fuel are in short supply - it is not easy to get adequate supplies to people.

Latest statistics:

• 13 million people affected (OCHA)
• 5 million children affected (OCHA,15 Nov)
• Official death toll – 3,976 (NDRRMC)
• 1,597 people missing (NDRRMC)
• 10,000 feared dead in one area– Tacloban (Leyte province)
• 18,175 injured (NDRRMC)
• 3 million people displaced (OCHA)
• 4,460 evacuation centres hosting 433,300 people (OCHA)
• 2.5 million people in need of food assistance (UN)
• 285,993 houses destroyed (OCHA)
• 4.4 million students affected: 11,919 primary and secondary schools impacted, 9,648 day care centres and over 300,000 pre-schoolers have been affected
• Livelihoods of 2 million people have been destroyed
• Severe damage to infrastructure, agriculture as well as telecommunications.
• Economic losses US $6,819,629; this is expected to increase as further reports come in (NDRRMC)
• US $301 million required to fund typhoon response plan (OCHA)
• 26% of UN appeal funded (US $79 million received, $222 million gap)

World Vision Distribution Sunday, 17 Nov (second distribution)

Daan Bantayan, northern tip of Cebu approx. 1,200 families (approx. 6,000)

A convoy of trucks delivered more than 50 tonnes of rations – including 30kg rice, sardines, beans, cooking oil, water and hygiene kits – to many of the worst-hit communities.

• Balance of initial distribution (120 families/600 people) received their relief supplies.
• Team of 11 operations staff, departed Saturday to conduct assessments and distributions of food and hygiene kits in Leyte. They will go to 9 Barangays in Ormoc and Tacloban. The distribution in Ormoc is planned to benefit 5,500 households (27,500 people).
• Distributions are planned for early this coming week, food kits and hygiene kits are expected to benefit 2,823 households (14,115 people).
• Sector specialists participated in the distribution today: they will continue to conduct sector-specific assessments in Cebu, Panay and Samar and Leyte over the coming weeks.
• Logistics structure is in place; there have been offers of service-in-kind donations of transportation, including the use of a C130 (plane), and warehouse space.

Australia: The Spoilt and Selfish Country

It's a dry, hot, dusty day in Chavakachcheri (Northern Sri Lanka) when I am taken to meet some of the families that have returned to their home communities after 30 years of civil war. Many of the children I meet have lost their Dad in the war, and the lucky ones - their Dads are amputees, or suffering from mental distress. Female headed households, (that's the official term) are the norm here.

But the community suffers, not just a human cost, but also from a lack of water, sanitation, food and economic opportunities to change their reality. Among the many challenges facing the area, much of the infrastructure in the Northern Province was destroyed and water sources were neglected.

In Chavakachcheri the people bought me bottled water - but this wasn't the $1 bottle you buy and throw, this was a bottle of the water they use for cooking, drinking, cleaning, bathing and gardening. (The picture to the right.)

Over the last year I have been working with a team in Sri Lanka to design a project that will "enhance the health and quality of life of the poor and vulnerable by improving sustainable access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene."

Our plan will transform the lives of 3,800 households, (15,960 people) and 4,500 students (in 15 schools) in 10 villages (with a bias towards female headed households and households with a disabled person). Our plans include:

• Constructing 10 water supply units which will improve equitable access to households and schools.
• Develop (with the government and community) new water supply options including: rainwater harvesting, household level solar treatment facilities and community tanks piping water to universally accessible stand points
• Sanitation and hygiene behaviour change will occur as a result of the provision of affordable latrines and solid waste disposal management which will result in the communities becoming open defecation free (ODF).

BUT IT'S ALL JUST ACADEMIC NOW. 

On Friday, the Liberal Government's decision to axe AusAID came into effect and an email arrived telling us that the funding (and the two other similar projects planned for PNG and Zimbabwe) has been withdrawn.

Tony Abbot's promise to balance the budget includes a $4.5 billion cut in the projected foreign aid budget over four years to help fund ''essential infrastructure'' in Australia. ''We can't continue to fund a massive increase in foreign aid at the expense of investment in the Australian economy,'' Hockey declared. Abbott added insult to that injury: ''We will build the roads of the 21st century rather than shovel money abroad.''

(It's much bigger than this; I am reducing the issue greatly, but to try and paint a realistic picture). Despite last year telling us that we had $2.5 million and the mandate to proceed - 12 months of discussions and planning with government and community, making promises on behalf of the Australian people, and with the approval of the Australian Government - on Friday night I had to ask the Sri Lankan team to begin to break the news that it is not going to happen. We do not have the promised money to help them get safe, clean water, or to assist them to build improved sanitation facilities. We do not have the people to help them, because we do not have the money. 

Why? Because the Australian government, on my behalf, told them that they are not a good investment. Julie Bishop (Foreign Affairs Minister) says 'that the new order was about making aid a tool of diplomacy and trade promotion'. So, investing in the lives of 4,500 students who have no safe drinking water at school has no economic advantage for Australia. It is more important that I have a nice road with a neon super-sculpture to brighten up my trip than 15,960 people in post-war communities have clean, safe water. (The number is actually much bigger than that because the whole program is actually 20 NGOs, in 12 countries.)

Mark Baker, (Editor, The Age: The shame that is Abbott's foreign aid policy) says: "The cuts... will also reinforce growing perceptions throughout the Asia-Pacific region and beyond that Australia is a spoilt and selfish country that's indifferent to the moral obligations of the richest nations to the poorest." (The Great Southland? Not so much!)

What Abbot's us-first approach to aid fails to acknowledge is that investing in the development of Northern Sri Lanka could actually have a dramatic impact on one of his other election promises - Stop the Boats. The best way to stop Sri Lankan's getting on boats and causing us discomfort on our boarders is to help them get water, sanitation, safety, jobs, hope and the same rights you and I demand at home - I suspect that it would be a lot cheaper too.

Overseas Aid: An Australian View

A quick look at what Australian people know and think about Overseas Aid.

Bosnia & Herzegovina, Republika Srpska

This last week I have been holed up in the Hotel Sarajevo, about 15 minutes outside the Capital of the Federation of Bosnia i Herzegovina attending a workshop facilitated by World Vision International with the grand title of "Integrating Peacebuilding and Conflict Sensitivity", or I-PACS.

I-PACS is about conflict mitigation and designing programming in ways that ensure that Aid and Development are not exacerbating conflict sensitivities but rather part of a response that promotes peace, and maybe reconciliation. The fact is that aid can sometimes be used as a tool to control people, or unintentionally (or maybe intentionally) promote the agenda of one of the parties in conflict.

It has been interesting, talking about issues of Interfaith Relations, Conflict, War and Peace in a country that only about 20 years ago saw one of the worst genocides in recent history. An then this morning we woke to Police vehicles cordoning off the corner and the news that the authorities are investigating a suspected mass grave (from the war) that is 100 meters from my hotel and 10 meters off the main road into Sarajevo City.

But today I had the opportunity to escape the Hotel and travel north into the rural city of Kakanj where we could meet and talk with some of the 'real people'. I had the privilege of interviewing a Roman Catholic priest, (a Croat) who is working with his church to address some of the needs of his parish. He spoke of a member of his congregation that cares for some of the ignored and lonely elderly people of his community; of the marginalisation and exclusion of the Roma minority and his attempts to include and empower them.

I visited one of the largest schools in the area that has about 1,050 students enrolled. The school manages three shifts (7:30am, 11:00am and 1:30pm) in a small building complex so as to cater for all the children. Schooling is obligatory, but the costs of purchasing books and material is too high for some who have limited or no income. And then, once the children complete their schooling there are no opportunities for work.

Parents are unemployed and receive little or no state assistance, either for children's basic needs or for medical assistance and the system is corrupt, uncaring and untrustworthy.

So what do INGOs do to assist in a community like Kakanj? What is the best way to partner for sustainable transformation with a community that voices little hope that the systems can change in any way that will offer them assistance?

If you know the answer let me know, but in the meantime, we do what we can to analyse the context, and ensure as best we can that what we are doing, (facilitating child sponsorship, children's education, civil society building, economic development) is the best we can and that it is equally accessible to all people regardless of social, ethnic and religious affiliation.