Tipping The Scales- Localization
Localization as a term itself is context specific and the language used to describe it often is quite disputable. This article aims to spell out a few reasons why the “localization” phenomenon remains an elusive goal despite being theoretically agreeable.
The Grand Bargain was the first of its kind agreement between some of the largest donors and International Humanitarian Organizations(IHOs). The agreement aimed to fuel the financial capacity of local entities which in turn can increase the effectiveness of humanitarian efforts. For instance, 25% of total assistance would go to local responders in the field.[1] Localization remains at the epicenter of the Grand Bargain with more emphasis on providing greater support to local responders and increasing participation of affected communities in tackling humanitarian issues.??
The rationale behind localization is not only ideologically sound but also practically beneficial. The label of “localizing” efforts entails empowering national and local actors in humanitarian aid. Local actors have the upper hand in terms of proximity and contextual knowledge that is often overlooked by IHOs.[1] Additionally, local and national actors can bridge the gap between response and recovery as they are the only constants in the ever-changing humanitarian landscape. [3]
Through my own experiences as a development practitioner, one of the biggest challenges I have encountered is balancing the chemistry between the donors/IHOs and local NGOs/stakeholders. Given the critical place of local organizations, factors such as authority, capacity, and accountability are prevalent barriers when it comes to the effectiveness of local stakeholders. Problems surface when global norms of accountability and capacity are applied at the local scale. However, localization as a concept itself is quite broad and is conversely much more intricate when it comes to implementation.
Below are a few barriers that are in the way of effective implementation of localization-
The term local can be used or misused based on numerous factors-?
Having a unifying definition of being "local" or "localisation" can homogenize communities and/or contexts leaving no room for diversity in the localisation process.
?
2.????Power – Incomplete transfer of leadership to INGOs
Localization as a strategic intent of IHOs represents a top-down process where elite humanitarian actors transfer capacity and resources to local/national entities. The discourse of development is still very much dominated by the larger, more “credible” entities from the Global North resulting in power imbalances within humanitarian governance. Localization would also entail the loss of critical assets on the ground for IHOs and this might lead to compromising on the operational capacity of the organization. Caballero-Anthony et al in their journal note that the UN agencies are resistant to giving up sectoral coordination activities to local entities which can create a sense of isolation for these actors. Additionally, there is luring mistrust of data or traditional knowledge procured from local sources as it may not align with data conventional.?
It must be noted that external factors such as National Governments in certain cases might force-feed the narrative of localization to IHOs and expect a one size fits all solution; however, the transition to localization must be tailored to the contextual factors of place.?
?
3.????Complex Funding Mechanics and Risk-averse Donors-?
Humanitarian aid has become a billion-dollar business which has led to complex and intricate funding mechanisms. The landscape has evolved to become more professionalized resulting in more bureaucratic processes and operations. [4] This is not necessarily a disadvantage, but donors would rather opt to fund IHOs on a traditional project basis rather than support small local organizations long term to build capacity. Legal constraints and pressure from national entities can make donors more risk averse causing local entities to be stuck in a position of being subcontractors to IHOs.?
?
4.????Tipping the scales – Global vs Local [5]
When it comes to the accountability and legitimacy of a local non-profit, one of the biggest challenges posed to localization is when global accountability norms are applied to local NGOs. In her book “The Paradox of Scale”, Cristina Balboa talks about the legitimacy of local actors or the lack of it due to the assessment of local entities through global accountability norms by donors and IHOs. This further creates a sense of mistrust and reinforces imbalanced power dynamics.?
领英推荐
Conclusion-
In 2021, signatories of the Grand Bargain endorsed a new framework (Grand Bargain 2.0) as a follow up to the original agreement. This extension focusses on “quality of funding” and improving engagement of local actors. [6]
?With growing global uncertainty and increasing climate related disasters, local actors need to be engaged consistently. There needs to be push for a harmonious collaboration between IHOs and local actors to bridge the gap between the quantity of funding and effectiveness of humanitarian efforts. Engagement of local entities at the global level is crucial to decrease power disparities between “traditional” humanitarian actors (INGOs and UN agencies) and “non-traditional” actors (local entities). [7] Crisitina Balboa introduces the concept of “bridging capacity” in her book, The Paradox of Scale. Local actors must have the opportunity to negotiate across varying scales i.e the global and the local.[5] Agents of bridging capacity have two essential qualities –
a. They understand complexities that are inherent in the local and global scales. They also know the differences between the two.
b. They have the ability to translate and negotiate between the demands of the respective scales.
For instance, a local actor who represents local interests at a global negotiation is an agent of bridging capacity, or non-local actor who has lived in the local context for several years and then goes on to influence the global policy discourse can also be classified as an agent of bridging capacity.
The humanitarian elites need to welcome such agents of bridging capacity who can accurately represent the needs of the “local”.
Sources-
1.????The localisation agenda: How successful is it? - GFCF : GFCF. Global Fund for Community Foundations. (2021, July 13). Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://globalfundcommunityfoundations.org/blog/the-localisation-agenda-how-successful-is-it/
2.?????Caballero?Anthony,?M.,?Cook,?A.?D.?B.?&?Chen,?C.?Z.?(2021).?Re?imagining?the?global ahumanitarian?system?:?emerging?dynamics?in?the?Asia?Pacific.?International?Journal?of Disaster?Risk?Reduction,?56,?102098?.?https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102098
3.?????Lina Frennesson, Joakim Kembro, Harwin de Vries, Marianne Jahre, Luk Van Wassenhove, “International humanitarian organizations’ perspectives on localization efforts”, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Volume 83, 2022, 103410, ISSN 2212-4209,
4.?????M. Barnett, Humanitarianism transformed, Perspect. Polit. 3 (4) (2005) 723–740, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592705050401.
5.?????Paradox of Scale – Cristina Balboa
6.?????The Grand Bargain 2.0 Explained – An ICVA Briefing Paper (2022)
7.?????Carpenter, Samuel, and Randolph, Kent. “The Military, the Private Sector and Traditional Humanitarian Actors.”