Localisation: When Theory meets Reality

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:

• 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.

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.)