Localizaton, until the tide goes out

Important people meet in expensively wood paneled global capital venues and remind us that we must be committed to principles of inclusion and ownership. Localization is the best and only way to go! The academic ‘we’ are convinced, and evangelical, in our position that the best, and only way to ensure sustainable solutions for global poverty is to put the impacted people in the driver’s seat.

We have built an entire glossary of buzz words and phrases that any good NGO grant writer knows must be used for improved chances of acquisition success. How many times have I heard writers say (sarcastically of course - or is it?) that you can write a beautifully researched, logical, and articulate narrative, but if it doesn’t include the words ‘gender’, ‘localization’, ‘capacity building’ and ‘empowerment’ (there are others) it will not pass the first automated keyword search.

Localization is the one that I have heard from funding agencies in these last few weeks as we plan for a new year. Forgive my cynicism but based on very recent history with one of these award-winning funding networks, it appears that we are only faithful to our commitment if there is enough money to pay for it. The dollars are a direct determinant of the degree of dedication.

Don’t misunderstand me. I am convinced that one of the best and most important things I can do is use my privilege, and my access to resources to help build the capacity of those that don’t have this access and privilege. I am fully committed to localization and evangelical about doing all I can to make sure that the people I serve are fully included, and funded, from beginning to end. The best way to change structures and lives is to empower (sorry had to do it), share (or give) my access and resources with (to) local agencies to be the agents of change.

I and the people I work with do our best to bring the theory of localization alive in the programs and the people we support. But what do you do when the people that control the dollars, the people who insist that local agencies are included in the design, demand that you delete the local partner when the funding is reduced?

Obviously, regardless of whether you are an international or local organisation it costs money to administer and sustain your people and your organisation. But when I budget for funding to these costs for a local agency, the funding reviewer routinely excludes them as non-essential expenses. And then, (as happened recently) when the funding is tight, I am told not just to reduce the funds, but ‘release’ (or sack) the local partner.

Apparently when the funding is tight – the first thing to go is our commitment to localization and our obligation to partnership with local partners. (But we can at least assure people that it’s important by including it on the agenda of our next summit at the beach.)