The reality of localisation in the humanitarian field

The reality of localisation in the humanitarian field

In the final part of Victoria Barrios’ series on the localisation of humanitarian aid, Barrios looks at a number of case studies where localisation efforts have been tried and tested. 

Localisation may be widely accepted in the humanitarian field as a concept, but in practice, how effective is localising aid? By looking at case studies, we can clearly see both the practical benefits of localisation as well as the challenges of implementation. This article will compare and contrast a case study from the perspective of a local NGO and a case study from the perspective of an international NGO to understand how each measures success and highlight how localisation is specifically affecting marginalised groups.

When Hurricane Irma hit north-east Haiti in 2017, the local NGO FONHARE (Fondation Haitienne de Rehabilitation) was able to demonstrate how a localised response could be successfully led by people with disabilities. Local community-based organisations made up of disabled people led FONHARE’s on-the-ground response and the German-based donor CBM (Christian Blind Mission) funded the wider response, providing technical support as needed. However, the money from CBM did not arrive until a week after Irma hit. Luckily, FONHARE was able to use their own resources from individual supporters to quickly conduct need assessments, distribute food and hygiene kits, set up mobile clinics to provide medical assistance and disease prevention, and restore livelihoods that were destroyed.

FONHARE has since supported international agencies in Haiti to be more inclusive in their emergency response as the disabled often struggle to access distributions by international organisations. Thus, this localised response demonstrated how important it is to have local partnerships for both immediate funding needs, local knowledge, and rapid mobilisation. FONHARE is nevertheless well aware that their own resources are not enough to respond to large-scale emergencies such as Hurricane Irma. Therefore, this case study also displayed the need for donor requirements to be simplified and fundamentally changed so that local actors such as FONHARE can fairly compete for direct funding on their own and not have to wait for international funding partners in an emergency.

Interestingly, analysing case studies from the international vs. local perspectives reveals that international actors perceive there to be more challenges to localisation than local actors seem to. For example, CARE International reflected on the localised response to Cyclone Winston in Fiji and noted certain challenges surrounding project implementation. This included the need for individual and agency-wide capacity building and a clear set of communications protocols regarding the media. CARE also found it difficult to find local partners that have similar vision and commitments in regards to gender to ensure gender-sensitive and gender-transformative programming.

In conclusion, there needs to be greater communication and agreement between local and international actors to guarantee an effective shift of power that truly acts on its promises so that the humanitarian system as a whole can work together to protect and empower the vulnerable.

 

Sign up to our newsletter to get our top stories straight to your inbox.

 

The Pros and Cons of localisation

The Pros and Cons of localisation

Victoria Barrios continues her three part series on the localisation of humanitarian aid, this week focusing on the pros and cons of localisation efforts. 

“Localisation” is now a buzzword among humanitarian actors ever since the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS). Although the concept is largely accepted in the humanitarian field, some organisations are still hesitant to fully endorse and implement such an approach for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, localisation includes involving and empowering local authorities. This has caused some controversy as governments obviously have different powers and responsibilities than non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and therefore are expected to operate by a different set of standards. The NGO Médecins Sans Frontières pulled out of the WHS because of this, stating that, “the summit neglects to reinforce the obligations of states to uphold and implement the humanitarian and refugee laws which they have signed up to.” When it is often the government that is the root cause of so much poverty and conflict, ignoring the role they play fails to condemn violations of human rights and could put local agencies at risk. Can local actors safely deliver impartial humanitarian assistance if they are possibly caught up in the political or military conflict?

Donor requirements also present a challenge to shifting power to local actors as most communication with donors is in English and the financial amount that NGOs are expected to contribute to the proposed project is often too high for local agencies. However, if local actors could apply for funding from international donors themselves in their native language and without co-funding requirements, it would drastically reduce aid dependency as they would no longer need to partner with an international NGO that holds the purse-strings and thus makes the relationship fundamentally unequal. Although localisation commits to direct funding for local actors, unless certain donor requirements are changed, the scales will always be imbalanced.

Furthermore, the whole concept of capacity building within localisation is seen as one-sided. Questions of capacity normally refer to the local actor, but what about the international funders? Why is their capacity never questioned? As a local campaigner from the Global South pointed out, “please don’t keep telling us that we need to build capacity; it’s insulting and patronising. It’s an old-fashioned, colonial viewpoint. These organisations are run by people with two PhDs, they are not stupid. Just assume that the capacity is there and fund us properly.”

Despite this criticism, localisation is widely understood as the most sustainable way forward. The specifics of its implementation may be currently under microscopic review, but the larger concept of shifting power to local actors is regarded as a step in the right direction towards lasting positive change. For example, as shown in the Ebola outbreak of 2014, local actors in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea were paramount in the response as the main UN/NGO implementing agencies were not present on the front lines of the emergency. Local knowledge, relationships and experience are often devalued. Finding new and creative ways to utilise these attributes is crucial. It is clear the global humanitarian system is in need of transformation, but does localisation work? In the final part of this trilogy, a case study will provide a reflection on the effectiveness of localisation efforts.

 

Sign up to our newsletter to get our top stories straight to your inbox.

What is localisation?

What is localisation?

Victoria Barrios breaks down what localisation of humanitarian aid means in practice and why it is an important step forward for the international community. 

Localisation has been a hot topic in the humanitarian sector for the past few years. Although there is no globally agreed definition, localisation is broadly, a collective process involving various stakeholders that aims to return local actors, whether civil society organisations or local public institutions, to the centre of the humanitarian system with a greater role in humanitarian response. It can come in several forms including more equitable partnerships between international and local agencies, channelling humanitarian aid to and through local institutions and organisations, and local actors having a more significant position in aid coordination.

Localisation is essentially a shifting of power. It aims to put the power of decision making and the control of resources back into the hands of the locals, those with the most connectedness and proximity. Local actors know the context, speak the language and will be there long after international organisations leave. They are also at greater risk. In 2014, 90% of all humanitarian workers killed were local responders. Yet their crucial role is often ignored by the humanitarian system. Localisation intends to harness this local knowledge and build the capacity of crisis-affected communities to empower and ultimately strengthen them to lead development efforts.

The discussion regarding localisation was fuelled by the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) in Istanbul. The WHS reflected on the changing nature of humanitarian crisis and need. In particular, there was focus on a published Report to the Secretary-General regarding the dramatic gap between the current funding need and the amount the global community actually provides. According to the report, “over the last few years, conflicts and natural disasters have led to fast-growing numbers of people in need and a funding gap for humanitarian action of an estimated US$15 billion.” On top of this, in 2016, only 1.7% of all NGO funding went directly to national and local NGOs. Therefore, there is overwhelming financial need, but the local actors that need it most are not the ones directly receiving the money. At the Summit, there was consensus that the global humanitarian system was built by and for international actors and was not utilising local institutions and actors enough, despite their inarguable importance. As a result, it was decided that humanitarian assistance should be more localised as a more effective and sustainable solution to this problem. It was thus concluded that on a practical level, where possible, there should be more direct funding to local humanitarian providers.

The WHS resulted in many commitments and initiatives towards localisation. Among the agreements signed, most notable was The Great Bargain, which committed some of the biggest donors and aid organisations to, among other things, provide 25 percent of global humanitarian funding to local and national responders by 2020.

The idea of localisation has been met with both criticism and praise. Is localisation too idealistic with no guiding steps to implementation or is it just what the humanitarian system needs right now to truly empower and strengthen local actors? While some humanitarian actors think localisation is a much needed bottom-up approach that is the only way to true positive change, others challenge that certain important aspects of humanitarian assistance are being ignored such as the responsibility of states and certain vulnerable and marginalised groups. In the next part of this trilogy, both the pros and cons of the theory will be explored.

 

Sign up to our newsletter to get our top stories straight to your inbox.

Causes and consequences of climate change related displacement

Causes and consequences of climate change related displacement

Larissa Saar begins her three part series discussing the implications of climate related displacement, this week explaining the main causes and issues of displacement in situations related to climate change.

 

According to a definition by the National Geographic, “climate refugees are people who must leave their homes and communities because of the effects of climate change and global warming”, which makes them a subgroup of environmental refugees who have to leave their homes due to natural disasters like tsunamis or volcano eruptions. However, this does not translate into an international status that requires protection, as climate refugees are not recognised by international law or the vast majority of countries (with Finland and Sweden being notable exceptions). The most evident case of climate-related displacement comes in the form of increased flooding, as a result of rising sea levels, or increased droughts, as a result of rising temperature, making areas uninhabitable to people and forcing them to move elsewhere. Most of these are internal migrants, but those that cross borders can be sent back as per the current state of international law.

But there is also another way in which climate change can lead to displacement. According to the independent project Climate Refugees, “climate change serves as a ‘threat multiplier’ as food and water insecurity and competition over resources provoke or exacerbate conflict and compound displacement”. There are, for example, some suggestions that in the five years leading up to the conflict in Syria, millions migrated from no longer sustainable rural areas into cities, driving urban areas, which helped fuel the conflict. With these overlapping and intertwined causes of displacement, it is difficult to discern where displacement is climate-related, so estimates on the numbers of climate-related displacement vary. By some estimates, there will be up to 50 million climate refugees by 2050, while others suggest that the number will be as high as 250 million.

It is clear that action is needed yet the creation of an international protection status seems unlikely. While states are reluctant to take such a step in the first place, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) is also concerned about undermining the status of those fleeing persecution and favours the creation of regional rather than international mechanisms as a response to increasing climate-related migration.

 

 

 

 

 

Sign up to our newsletter to get our top stories straight to your inbox.

Image courtesy of Cristina Gottardi via Unsplash