Almost two years ago the World Humanitarian Summit, (together with the Grand Bargain and the Charter for Change) called for, and received a commitment to a localised approach to the delivery of aid in humanitarian programming. Targets were set, agencies committed to the ideal and since then many hours have been spent designing new channels, arguing definitions and establishing partnerships that will allow for the fulfilment of the promises.
Localisation is not a new concept. It is, in essence, the very heart of good aid and development practice. It is (in part) about hearing the local voice, recognising local capacity and honouring local culture. It is, as an international aid worker, committing to a role of alongsider, to a partnership that preferences the priorities of the local actors and gets out the way as soon as practical. (While the flow of funding is essential in the dialogue, localisation is, and must be about much more than funding.)
As an aid worker I have no argument with the principle of localisation and in practice I and the organisation I work for have long sought to find ways to ensure that we get out of the way. Our methods of engagement have always been about community participation and local capacity building. But, the reality is that there will always be a balance that needs maintained – especially in the humanitarian sector.
I sat with James, the CEO of one of our local partners recently and was reminded of the challenges that he faces in the drive for a localised approach. Proudly he points to the wall behind his desk where a collage comprising of the logos of over a dozen donor agencies that fund his agency hangs. But, he says, a recent interaction with one of these institutional donors frustrates and disappoints him.
As a well respected local NGO a donor approached him saying that they wanted to partner (and fund) directly with a local actor and (among) the requirements of this local NGO were that they:
Localisation is not a new concept. It is, in essence, the very heart of good aid and development practice. It is (in part) about hearing the local voice, recognising local capacity and honouring local culture. It is, as an international aid worker, committing to a role of alongsider, to a partnership that preferences the priorities of the local actors and gets out the way as soon as practical. (While the flow of funding is essential in the dialogue, localisation is, and must be about much more than funding.)
As an aid worker I have no argument with the principle of localisation and in practice I and the organisation I work for have long sought to find ways to ensure that we get out of the way. Our methods of engagement have always been about community participation and local capacity building. But, the reality is that there will always be a balance that needs maintained – especially in the humanitarian sector.
I sat with James, the CEO of one of our local partners recently and was reminded of the challenges that he faces in the drive for a localised approach. Proudly he points to the wall behind his desk where a collage comprising of the logos of over a dozen donor agencies that fund his agency hangs. But, he says, a recent interaction with one of these institutional donors frustrates and disappoints him.
As a well respected local NGO a donor approached him saying that they wanted to partner (and fund) directly with a local actor and (among) the requirements of this local NGO were that they:
- must be locally registered
- must be able to show evidence of a strong local governance structure that includes a local board
- must be able to provide evidence of past capacity to implement in the sectors and geographies selected
After a number of discussion with the donor and having no issues with any of those criteria, James and his team, one of the only reputable and suitably credentialed agencies with a track record of operating in the fragile context required, submitted the concept and all the evidence required. And, as per standard procedure, submitted a budget to deliver.
Imagine then his disappointment when he received a letter advising him of the refusal of the donor, (a signatory to the Grand Bargain and the localisation agenda) to fund his agency. The letter praised his operational reputation, but stated that they would not allow funding to be allocated to ‘overheads’ which included a small percentage towards the operating costs of the governance structures including board expenses.
Expecting local NGOs to meet ‘international standards’ (the words used by the donor) of compliance and governance but refusing to pay towards the establishment and maintenance of these standards seems to be not only short sighted, but in direct contradiction of the commitment to localisation. If we, the international community, expect ‘international standards’ then we need to be willing to fund and support the building of this capacity.
