Localisation (humanitarian Practice)

Localisation (or localization) is the practice, in humanitarian aid, to give more power, funding and resources to humanitarian aid organizations and people that are based in countries local to the emergency.

The need to localise was agreed upon by governments and aid agencies as part of the Grand Bargain at the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016 and promoted as the "New Way of Working" by United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in 2017.

The target to increase funding to local organizations to 25% of the global humanitarian aid budget by 2020 was not met.

Due to a lack of evidence to support localisation, perceptions drive decision making about funding and separate employment streams for local and international staff at humanitarian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) prevent local people from rising to positions of power.

Definition

Localisation is the practice, in humanitarian aid, to give more power, funding and resources to humanitarian aid organizations and people that are based in countries local to the emergency.

Power and perceptions

Despite the widespread agreement that more funding should go to local and national organizations, rather than international NGOs and United Nations agencies, from 2016 to 2020 the commitments to change were not realized.

The tendency of humanitarian aid organizations to have separate systems for employing local and international staff prevents local staff from rising to positions of power. Unjust systems of power distribution in the humanitarian system are widespread and prevent people from communities affected by humanitarian crisis and organizations local to them from influencing decision making about emergency responses to disasters.

Despite agreements to fund local organizations and assumptions that doing so will improve the quality of humanitarian aid, there is a lack of evidence about the evidence that funding more local organizations will improve the quality of aid. That lack of evidence acts as a barrier to progress towards more localisation.

The inability of international humanitarian NGOs to do their work in unstable contexts and because of movements restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the role of local organizations, but has also increased safety and health risks to staff working for local organizations.

Perceptions, rather than facts, about risks and the management of risks drives behavior of the governments who fund humanitarian aid, despite a lack of evidence to support the perceptions. Predominantly the perception that funding local organizations presents a greater risk and the perception that local organizations management of risks is inferior are barriers to localization.

Timeline

At the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, many governments who fund humanitarian aid agreed to reform the way the fund humanitarian activities in an agreement called the Grand Bargain. One of the key commitments in the Grand Bargain was to direct 25% of humanitarian aid funding to local humanitarian organizations, as directly as possible, by 2020. To help realize this goal the Network for Empowered Aid Response was created.

In 2017, the practice of localisation was promoted by United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in their publication "New Way of Working." In 2018, Oxfam moved its global headquarters from the UK to Kenya.

Despite the 2016 commitment to increase aid spending to local organizations between 2016 and 2020, the amount of government aid that went directly to local organizations reduced from 3.5% to 2.1%.

In 2021, the European Union Commissioner Janez Lenarčič was criticized for comments made in an interview with The New Humanitarian in which he suggested the lack of localisation was the result of a lack of capacity amongst local aid agencies. His comments prompted criticisms from Network for Empowered Aid Response and others who perceive the problem to be a result of those in power not relinquishing it. Also in 2021, sixty donors took part in negotiations led by Jan Egeland to create an updated ''Grand Bargain 2.0'' that will contain targets to advance localization.

''Overseas Development Institute'' report

In 2021, Véronique Barbelet, Gemma Davies, Josie Flint, and Eleanor Davey wrote ''Interrogating the evidence base on humanitarian localisation,'' which reviewed recent literature on localisation. The publication commissioned by the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and published by Humanitarian Policy Group of the Overseas Development Institute.

The report covers recent history of localisation efforts that governments who fund humanitarian aid agreed to as part of the Grand Bargain agreement, struck at the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016 It notes that even the term "localisation" is rejected by some humanitarian practitioners and use of it can be counter productive to shifting power. It also notes that in the humanitarian system it is international stakeholders who hold the power and local stakeholders who do not and invites reflection on the amount of power that local organisations have and funding that they receive

The report points out that international humanitarian aid agencies have an obvious desire for "self preservation" and that acts as a barrier to more localisation The authors report that local organisations feel excluded from forums where important decisions are made.

It talks about the lack of consensus between stakeholders in defining localisation, with some humanitarian practitioners believing that the definition should change depending on the country and emergency. It also documents a lack of consensus in defining who is a "local humanitarian actor."

The desire of local and national humanitarian agencies to have more funding, less bureaucratic contracts with donors, and more support is documented, noting that high levels of compliance regulations imposed by international intermediaries on local organizations create perverse reporting and operational incentives at the expense of fairer partnerships.

The report documents that there despite the logical of such conclusions, there is a lack of evidence to support the perception that local aid organizations are more effective in the delivery of humanitarian aid. It speaks about helpful things that donors can do, including the importance of funding the normal operating costs of local organizations. It notes that international agencies could not move international staff around during the COVID-19 pandemic, forcing more responsibility onto local organizations, and called that temporary power shift a missed opportunity to transform how humanitarian aid is delivered.

Other included recommended solutions to encourage more localisation are:

* Provision of multi year funding agreements
* Donors requiring localisation of international agencies
* Investing in more research and reviews
* Inviting local organisations to meetings
* Donors requiring international agencies to plan the end of international humanitarian interventions

Despite claims that local groups lack impartiality there are few examples of this and little evidence to support claims that international agencies comply better with humanitarian principles.

References

External links

What's Stopping Localization in the Humanitarian SectorLocalisation and local humanitarian action
publication by the Humanitarian Practice Network
Who gets to decolonize Humanitarianism?
(essay)

{{Humanitarian Aid, state=collapsed

Foreign policy
Globalization
Humanitarian aid
International development